Alexander the Great = Darth Sidious!?!?

Alexander the Great is notable for his successful military campaigns against Persia. These great victories gave Alexander the title of a military genius in history. The reading however brings up a very disturbing point. Alexander's army committed blatant mutiny against him and he agreed to follow his army's wishes. This is not the way a legendary military commander does. His men's "refusal to obey orders" and his subsequent agreement to turn back showed that he was not an all powerful son of Zeus. But a man who pushed his army to far without thinking about anything other than himself. This is interesting when looking at the democratic ideas in ancient Greece and the monarchy of the Greek empire. It actually parallels with Star Wars quite nicely. The old republic, the evil new empire and the rebel army. It goes to show that all encompassing power into one man leads to the needless death of thousands for personal gain.

Alexander the Mediocre

It's official, Alexander the Great is no longer great, at least in my books.

While he was obviously a brilliant military mastermind who had the power to conquer territories faster than the ocean could spit them out, does that really make him great? How about the fact that he was able to establish the legendary empire of Greece and continue to rain fire down around himself all while being a young adult. Pretty impressive right? At what cost.

Maybe back in the day when conquering was hip this would make someone great. Important thing to note: In the modern day, Alexander would most likely not be considered great, in the past when being an insane warlord was plausible this was probably what earned him the title Alexander the Great. Today Alexander looks like a bloodthirsty maniac who caused the death of thousands of people and natives including his own men just to continue increasing his range of power but back in the day this was totally acceptable and he has every right to be considered great.

Except for the fact that he was insanely violent towards his friends to the point that he would murder them. The fact that he would often drink himself silly to the point that even people back then would be telling him to lay off (SOURCE: HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN SIX DRINKS). Alexander the Great was really not so great because of his bloodthirsty attitude that would be the end of many peoples lives, the insane temper he had when he wasn't on the battlefield. Although it could be argued that the empire he created is enough to consider him great, at the end of the modern day, it really isn't that Great.

Plain Old Alexander

Alexander the Great, in my opinion, was dubbed great simply because of his accomplishments. But we've also witnessed many other leaders who have had the same exact success but have been in the shadows for a long time. He is "great" because he himself thought he was extraordinary, so if he wanted, he could have called himself whatever he wanted and his people would have still followed him and supported his decisions.
Yes, he is not so great when it came to what he did to his people, his arrogance, and his temper, but the man still was great in other areas, most importantly holding his position for the duration he did.
The article is definitely leaning towards the (not so great) side of the argument, but as MK wrote, it "could be done for any ruler, there is always evidence to argue good and bad, it just depends on how you look at it."

Ungreat or Great?

Historical figures are painted out by history books over time to be good or bad. Alexander the Great, is obviously deemed a powerful mighty ruler, judging by just his name. However, behind every evil dictator or beloved ruler is discussion over whether they deserve it or not. After all, there are some people who argue that Hitler was a good ruler. This article explores the negatives to Alexander the Great, and how he does not deserve to be respected. It talked about how he was not an ideal king, and he caused the death of many of his own men. Alexander The Great was immature and would sulk when he did not get his way. He forced his men through a desert, ill prepared, and they ended up killing their baggage animals for food. Washington exposes the ugly side to Alexander the Great, thus questioning his title. This can be done for any ruler, there is always evidence to argue good and bad, it just depends on how you look at it.

Quiet Greece and Loud Persia

The brains versus the bold has been a constantly battle between the nerds and the jocks. The Persians and Greek are not very similar at all.  While the Persians valued war-like activities and warriors at a very high standard, the Greeks however thought that brains were much more important than killing other people.  The Persians didn’t care for the Greeks because Persia at the time had a very large and growing empire without needed the Greeks and their intellect.  The Persian Empire stretched from the India all the way to the Mediterranean Sea; their empire in 500 B.C.E didn’t need to grow any larger and didn’t need the help of Greece. Greece didn’t bother anyone and were not a threat to the Persians so there was no need to involve themselves with people with completely different values.  Persian had no need to get involved with Greece because they saw Greece as lowers considering Persia at the time was a power house and dominated almost all of Asia and parts of Europe.

Greeks vs. Persians

The Persians likely looked down on the Greeks because as a whole, the Greeks valued intellectual pursuits over military ones, while the Persians placed warriors in high regard.  With the exception of Sparta, the Greek city-states focused on technological and philosophical ideas.  They had militaries, but not the desire to conquer the world.  However, the Greeks did spread throughout the Mediterranean through colonization.  The Persians could have thought of Greece the same as Egypt, which they managed to overcome.  Also, Greece was not zoroastrian, and the Persians likely looked down on Greece for its pantheon of gods.

Starting Drama: Greece vs. Persia

"The rivalry and wars of Greeks and Persians ... were the first act of a drama that has continued." It's well-known that a person dislikes another who is most similar to him/her. The same concept applies to Persia and Greece; both empires were so similar they had to disagree on something. They shared very similar cultural traits and religious outlooks on life, as well as sharing the same language origins stemming from the first Indo-European family. Persia wanted to show how disobedience would be treated, and that resulted in its multiple wars against Greece, nevertheless Greece continued to thrive, and so did Persia.
Personally, I think Persians were just not interested in going after Greece in the end because they had enough. Why go after something similar to yours when you have the same exact thing right in front of you, you know? If they did fight, it was for purposes of expansion and power, but not really for anything other than that.

"I'm Not Interested"

Hey guys,

I think you all make great points when you say that Greece was probably not that interesting to the Persian's because Persia was the bigger power at the time.
I agree with this, and it makes sense. Because Persia had more land, and more people under it's control, and because Persia was succeeding and surpassing Greece in trade and economics, Greece was not anything interesting, or, in my personal opinion, Greece was not a THREAT to the Persians.

Because Greece was no threat, there was no desire to mimic or learn much about Greece. Emma also pointed out in her blog post, that the Greeks clearly did not look up to the Persians, either. The Persians became especially disinterested when the Greeks misunderstood their culture, and made little attempt to understand it correctly. Perhaps, it was that both societies thought that their culture was superior to the other, and had little interest in finding out which was actually true.

Something no one has mentioned yet, but I thought was just an interesting side note, is the idea of religion. I think the Zorastronism (sorry, don't know how to spell that), faith plays a huge role in the identity of the Persians. Darius I made it his duty to see to it that the entire empire was following this religion, he used religion to unify such a vast control of different peoples and places. More so, this religion held people to high ethical standards, which also kept people in line, without having to create a strict set of laws. (Side Note: This religion was actually one that may have been the foundation for Judaism and Christianity). Perhaps this was one of the contrasting elements to the disinterest, and maybe even possible conflicts to the Persians and the Greeks in the future. (Maybe not, just musing here).

Thanks for reading,
Nat

"You can't sit with us" - The Persian Mean Girls

The reason why Persians didn't see Greece as "worth their time" was because of how prosperous the empire was on its own. Under Darius I the Persian empire became the largest empire the world had ever seen. By having such an extensive empire that encompassed various regions a mesh of different social and political groups as well as resources. Therefore, the Persian empire would have had contact with a vast array of people, cultures, and materials, creating a more diverse empire. Additionally, such a large empire was maintained through various organizational procedures. Such as well maintained and patrolled royal roads that connected regions to the center of the empire. This ensured that even far off sections of the empire would have to maintain contact with the central political powers. The Greeks being in such close proximity to such a powerful empire would obviously spread rumors in order to maintain their own high status and make people believe that they were far more sophisticated and dominant than the Persians. For instance the Greek stereotype of Persian queens make them out to be diabolical power grabbing women, when in fact Persian women often protected their family members and mediated conflicts. To me it seems like the Persians were just doing their thing and building an awesome empire and the Greeks took it personally.

low key Greece

Greece was not worth the Persains' time because Greece kept to themselves. They were not a powerhouse of a country that constantly expanded their territories and conquered areas, like Persia was. Darius I, ruler of Persia, infiltrated Greece and defeated city-states. Greece was described in the book as a "comfortable place". They did well for themselves but did not step on others toes. Greece could not sustain a large population and had limited land to grow crops. Their lands had few metal deposits and little timber. Greece used the ocean to attain goods, by sailing on small, fragile ships. Persia was a dominating force, with monarchical rulers who fought and conquered. Persia did not pay much attention to Greece because they were superior and could easily conquer them, they did not pose as a threat.

The Persians & the Greeks

The Persian's didn't really like the Greeks for many reasons. First of all the Greeks couldn't tell the difference between the Medes and the Persians. Also, the Greeks depicted the Persian queens as "vicious intriguers, poisoning rival wives and plotting to win the throne for their sons." This idea was completely wrong, but this is how the Greeks recorded this idea. The Greeks constantly recorded things about Persian life as facts, even though they didn't actually know anything about it. This made the Persians think that the Greeks weren't really worth their time, because if the Greeks weren't going to take the time to actually know about Persian culture, why should the Persians care about Greece. I think that is a very valid point, because why spend time doing something for someone that obviously does not respect you. In addition, the Persian empire was much more expansive and impressive then than the Greeks, so they were already above them. Also, Darius I was the most important ruler of the day, so he obviously wouldn't care about those below him.

The Persians did not think Greece was important because Persia was so much larger and prosperous. Persia was expansive and Darius was considered a king of kings. Persia's complex political hierarchy and expansive trade routes made Greece look like a bunch of poor rebellious island dwellers. The only reason that Persian fought Greece was to set an example on how subordination would not be tolerated. Even though that failed. Bulliet makes points about how greco-persian culture was similar in ways but I think that the political differences made it so that they could never meld.

Silk Road & the Indian Ocean

The traders moved goods and ideas throughout eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia through a complex series of roads that traveled all throughout these places. In Africa, camels were mostly used for transportation because they were best suited for desert travel. This led to the invention of the camel saddle, which made the ride more comfortable, making it more efficient. Along with the physical goods that the traders were moving they moved religious ideas, new technologies, war tactics and sadly also diseases. The Silk Road connected the ancient world in an amazing was that would never would've happened without it. Without the Silk Road, many of the amazing technologies of Asia wouldn't have made it to Europe and the Mediterranean. The Asian civilizations were much more technologically advanced, even though the history books like to act like it was the other way around. One of the empires that benefitted from the Silk Road was the Sasanid Empire, because they saw the travel routes as a way that they could spread their religious ideas.

Silk Road

Nothing was more interesting to my than how dependent nomads were on settle regions and how dependent settle regions were on nomads, showing that one group really couldn’t have the same benefits in life without one another. Without nomads the Silk Road wouldn’t have been half as prosperous. The Silk Road stretched from Chine to the Mediterranean Sea, crossing thousands of miles and through completely different cultures. The ideas, culture, crops, and religion from Southeast Asia were able to reach and touch the lives of people living on the boarder of the Mediterranean Sea. The deep connection from the Silk Road to the lives of all the people involved is looking at the correlation between the rise and fall of major empires effected the Silk Road, showing that the trade route had a deeper impact on the world during the time then just being a source of trade from country to country. The Silk Road brought sailing advances (ocean trading), different spices, crops, art, and different metals to country all across the world showing how every country was now connected with each other in some sort of way even if the countries were completely different.  

Camel-Riding & Trade: Typical Asia

The Silk Road spanned numerous countries and had tremendous advantages for all of them. The route not only provided goods and supplies unknown to mankind till then, but also an impressive cultural and religious exchange. Moreover, the camel saddle was a major turning point at the time as it facilitated goods to be transported across vast areas in the region while also giving Arabs leverage over other tribes. Religions, beliefs, and languages intermixed a lot due to the route passing through so many different cultures and geographic locations. Basically, thank God for the Silk Road cause without it we would all be significantly behind on everything.

Its amazing that people who all spoke different languages and had different custom and beliefs were able to work out such a large scale trading network so long ago.  A feat like that is difficult nowadays, when we can communicate instantly and translate languages.  The Silk Road was way ahead of its time, and because of that, it helped to fill the technological gaps in many civilizations.  Since this was the first major way to spread ideas across a large distance, it used lots of changes.  China got new crop varieties.  Mesopotamia got african ivory, and indian spices.  Buddhism spread throughout southern Asia.  Sailing advanced significantly, because of the increased trading demand.  Everyone was blessed with the invention of the stirrup, which makes horseback riding much easier and more comfortable.  The silk road was a major advancement technologically and socially for the world.

The Rise of the Trader

The rise of the trader as a new social class during the time period of the silk road really caught my eye. The idea of a middleman between the producers like farmers, fisherman and herders between the city dweller, aristocrat and artisan has not been seen up to this point. Bulleit raises the question if they contributed more than kings to the rise of great societies and evidence does point in that direction. How else would porcelain pottery made it half way around the world without people spending their entire lives moving goods? Traders facilitated the success of the silk road. Without traders trying to compete with others for the best deals, quickest and safest routes around treacherous mountains and warring nations, nothing would have spread. The importance of the trader cannot be understated and should definitely be looked at more closely.

Camel Saddles and Other Less Important Events.

I thought it was interesting how there were specific times where the Silk Road would "thrive". This seemed to be based on whether or not there was of conflict in areas involved with the Silk Road. For example, between 340 and 628 the Byzantine and Roman empires launches various attacks against one another. However, during times of peace goods could easily be transported from the Silk Road and enter into Mediterranean trade. Ideas would move naturally as trade spread to new regions, resulting in cultural exchange. More over, the Silk Road did facilitate the exchange of religious ideas as missionaries travelled it in order to spread Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. As religions spread and became more dominant they began to play a major role in defining community identity and political alignments. The Silk Roads correlation with the rise and fall of empires can be seen in the Sasanid Empire in Iran. Because Arabs had CAMEL SADDLES they played an important role in transportation along the Silk Road as well as in facilitating commerce in their region. (Basically, if you've got a camel saddle you can rule the world.) Additionally, if an empire is thriving then trade will prosper in the region. Whereas the fall of empires would stifle the flow of trade along the Silk Road because the priority would no longer be focused on the exchange of goods.

Silk Road was pretty cool

The Silk Road, which connected the Mediterranean and China,  played a major role in the spread of ideas, crops, religion, and humans. Caravans brought goods along the way, and pastoral nomads provided animals, handlers, and protection for the Silk Road. These Nomads' homes were on four-wheeled wagons dragged by oxen. The Silk Road later became an avenue to transport religious ides, which ended up playing a significant role in societies. The use of chariot warfare and mounted men by stirrup was spread by means of the Silk Road. Once the Mediterranean Ocean System was established, ocean trade became convenient and popular. For example, the Mozambique Channel spread crops and language. Sailor men often married women from port cities, therefore making families more cultured and diverse. With the expansion of territories and growing wealth in temples, traders were enticed to travel farther for goods. This effected the entire society, not just wealthy elites.

Hump Day

Hi Guys,

Just finished up the reading.

I thought that Bulliet had some really cool points in this reading, one of those being the idea that the Silk Road  became so extensive and complex that it grew into a social system of it's own. It is remarkable to think back on the amount of languages, religion, and culture that were all flowing in to the Silk Road, along with the goods, and even currencies.
I also hadn't really thought about WHY the Silk Road happened in China. I think Bulliet makes another good point when he says that it depended somewhat on the type of people that were in China and the surrounding areas at the time. Those people were pretty mobile, and though they didn't tend to move for trading purposes, these people were often schlepping their belongings on the backs of certain animals, some horses, and mainly camels. This idea helped build the foundation for a system like the Silk Road, where people could travel it and wind up with a bigger purpose, and making better money. In fact this adoption became crucial and important to those in the Sasanid Empire, who were taught how to transition from being a nomadic person, to being a trader with a caravan. Most interesting I thought, was that, because so many people were schlepping products and culture all the way through the Silk Road, inventions like the Stirrup became super popular, as a result.


In conjunction with the Silk Road, the Indian Ocean System also played a huge role in facilitating goods to other places. In fact, the Indian Ocean System specifically brought highly valued goods with high demand across seas from anywhere from the east coast of India, to the China Malays, to the Persian Gulf. Some of these goods included copper, ivory, and wood. Important in this form of trade, was the social system as well. Coastlines became popular places to live, hubs, and ports became a center of trade and commerce, and women began to play a huge role in their ability to mediate the different cultures of sailors, and the natives of the land.

Camels and Ideas

So, in the prompt Mr. Chaput asked, "How do they move goods and ideas?", and because we just read about trade and camel saddles, I am going to assume that goods and ideas travel by trade and camel saddles. I do not believe that any society actively shares their ideas(unless they send missionaries). I can't imagine a king sending out a subject to go from town to town sharing new ideas. I believe ideas are exchanged passively along with goods. When a trader arrives in a new town he might sit down at a bar and talk about his customs to his fellow men. I can easily picture a ancient greek merchant enter a Roman restaurant and ask for a menu and when they told him that they don't have menus because they don't have written language, he would get irritated and tell them that back in his country they have this awesome thing called the alphabet. Goods and travel by the Indian Ocean and camels. I assume that when nations fall, people seek out guidance and are more open to new ideas. 

Judaism

“The association of monotheism with Judaism was further developed with the codification of the Hebrew Scriptures, which also showed reflected the influence of Mesopotamian cultural and legal traditions. The Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires conquered various Jewish states at different points in time. These conquests contributed to the growth of Jewish diasporic communities around the Mediterranean and Middle East.” And “The core ideas in Greco-Roman philosophy and science emphasized logic, empirical observation and the nature of political power and hierarchy.”

      As the story of the scriptures came to be, the Mesopotamian systems began to change as well. The Old Testament began to collect the Israelites' history and formulate the history. This caused dispute among many people and they began to build religious systems around it, including the belief in one god, Yahweh. This was the beginning of monotheism, the belief in one god. The conflict between old religions and new began to arise as many Israelites were interested in new religion. The two Israel kingdoms fought and the north was victorious in forcing the losers to migrate to the east. This would soon mark the real start of the Jewish faith as when offered a position back centuries later, the large populace would decline, and only a few would make the trek back to Judah to rebuild and edit the Hebrew Bible. The Jews would begin to foster a sense of community in their isolation.

The strength of the Jewish kingdom was solely reliant on the power of the king, and unlike other states, like Egypt, that could survive with a not great king, Israel could not.  They never had the change to become en established power like rome and Egypt did.  They were also in a bad spot geographically, as there was not much room around them to expand.  They have evolved into a society that has to hide behind walls to survive.  Even to this day, Israel is persecuted my many different countries of different faiths.

Judaism

Coming away from Asia and polytheistic faiths, we have encountered our first monotheistic faith and into the Middle East, which I truly enjoy learning about but not really the prompt.  Judaism believes in one central God who will bring them out of enslavement and into the Promised Land. Starting with Abraham who discovered the Promise Land by his central God, “Yaweh” the Jewish religion developed through oral Hebrew speaking and the Hebrew Bible. Following the Torah and 10 Commandments Judaism worshipped God to live their life through those two main religious scriptures. After a loss of Jewish political autonomy and being exiled Jewish community started living by strict and rigid rules which effect their lives socially, politically, ant economy; this shows a similar correlation to the strict rules in Legalism only a little less harsh. Judaism went under many different changes throughout time, each change effecting old beliefs and causing changes throughout the society.

Judaism

When Judaism first started, its people were promised a land by their God "Yahweh". From that point on, the religion has gone through a relativity large number of changes. The faith is the first faith introduced to us as a monolithic faith so far, with Jews believing that their God is the only god and that there would be severe consequences for believing otherwise.
After being over taken by other monarchies, the remaining Jew communities were dispersed and scattered. This dispersion unified them and sharpened their Jewish identity and reinforced it. Jews established their own sets of rules and traditions. They placed a lot of importance on their rituals and values, which can be seen to this day.

Judaism: More Free(er) and Strict(er)

Hi guys,
We're moving out of Asia now, and are headed on over to the Mediterranean!
I thought the introduction by Bulliet was a little slow, but once we got into the heart of Judaism and it's fundamentals, I thought it became a really cool contrast and comparison to other religions and philosophies we've learned.
For example, WOMEN! Women have so much more freedom then they might have in a lot of the other religions we've discussed. In fact, most of the ones we have discussed have been pretty vague in terms of women rights, what a women's role was, and how that differed from the male's role (which leads me to believe that women probably did not have that much power because nobody was talking about it). But similarly to ancient Egypt, women practicing Judaism, could, in fact, gain an important role in society. (i.e. Deborah the Judge). Further, many of the women could entertain in a job, common were: cooks, wet nurses, etc. With the beginnings of Judaism, we are seeing women taking on roles other then just bearing and rearing children, (in peasant families they were even expected to help with the manual labor of farming).
So if women refer to my "free(er)" part to my Title, What do I mean when I say "and Strict(er)"?
Since women had more rights then what we have learned about in regards to other societies, they were therefore free(er). In contrast, the rules of Judaism we're both strict, and specific. Reminding me a lot of legalism, Jews were/are expected to follow a strict set of rules referring to their faith: monotheism, ritual baths for spiritual purity, limits to eating certain foods, honoring the Sabbath, and more.
So, while Judaism was becoming free(er) then other religions and societies we have learned thus far, it is also just as strict as the most harsh philosophy we have learned about thus far, too. That being: legalism.

Judaism

I have not gone to temple or church in five years, so I was a tad impressed with myself by how much I remembered. However, there were a few sections in the reading that I was surprised by. First off I did not know that the Jewish faith evolved from a polytheistic faith to a monotheistic faith. I always just assumed that one day Abraham claimed Yahweh was the one and only god and everyone just accepted that as fact. Never realized that Israelites were divided between other gods such as Ball the storm god and Ashram the fertility god. I also never really thought about the transition from tribal groups to a single monarchy. I knew there were Jewish tribes and I have heard Jewish kings, but I never really put two and two together to come to the conclusion there was a transition. From personal experience I understand that Israelites have a large emphasis on rules. My fathers side of the family strongly dislikes my mother because she turned off a stove on the Sabbath. We came over for a party and my aunt left the stove on the night before because she would not be allowed to turn it off the following day. My mother saw the stove was on and turned it off. She has gotten the cold shoulder from my cousins since.

the evolution of Judaism

Judaism changed significantly overtime. It began with Abraham and his descendants who migrated to the Syrian deserts to a land promised to him by Yaweh. Hebrew traditions were passed on orally. The spoken Hebrew language of the Bible changed into Aramaic. Once Solomon died, Israelites became monotheistic and believed in Yaweh exclusively. They also went from being a tribal confederacy to a unified monarchy. Israelites put a great emphasis on family, and lived with their extended family. The oldest male was dominant, but women were given respect as well. Jews lived by strict rules pertaining to food and rituals. Dispite evolution, the Jewish community has always been close and strong.

Judaism

This being the first monotheistic faith covered so far it has an interesting uniqueness in the way the god interacted with the follower. In the jewish faith they keep God's laws and seek to bring holiness into every aspect of their lives. This is means that religion is always present in jewish day to day activities and can be seen in the omnipotence of God. In judaism one live to worship God by living out their lives according to the Torah and the 10 commandments. This reflects the political traditions of Mesopotamia. Especially in the example of one of the books found in the Torah, Leviticus. Their are many laws and regulations stated in the book that concern what is right and wrong in everyday life. It gives an outline of how to live a holy life.

Judaism and Greco-Roman Philosophy

Judaism:

In 721 BCE when Assyrians began displacing large populations of Israelites it actually created a stronger sense of identity among those who were affected. The Jewish community's set of rules they live by- such as dietary restrictions, ritual baths, Sabbath, Monotheism, and ban on marrying non-jews- isolated them from other parts of society. However, this in turn created a tighter community and sense of identity because it allowed members of the Jewish community to band together and support each other. This can be seen in the creation of the synagogue which functioned as a religious, educational, and social meeting place. The synagogue allowed communities to maintain their religious and cultural beliefs in their new homelands.

Greco-Roman Philosophy:

I thought it was interesting how the reading brought up a correlation between "thinkers" and their interactions with people. For instance Bulliet wrote how many empirical thinkers came from Ionia and southern Italy because those were two areas with high contact with non Greek people. This makes sense to me because being introduced to a variety of people and their cultures exposes the Greeks to different ways of perceiving the world and their understand of it. Therefore, in addition to shifting from religious conceptions of the world to rational understanding, the interactions between cultures catalyzed the Greeks progressive scientific, philosophical, and political innovations.

Although I did not fully understand these primary sources and I am still a little confused, after reading them over multiply times I think I have a little bit of an understanding. Confucianism is much like Buddhism and Hinduism, being a healthy cross between both religions. While Hinduism puts a large emphasis on the community aspect of life so does Daoism but at the same time Confucianism also expects a lot of the individual along the lines of Buddhism.  One of the major differences is that Confucianism does not really stress any idea of reincarnation unlike Buddhism and Hinduism.  

Confucianism is also similar to Taoism in some ways, sharing some of the same beliefs. Taoism focuses on the idea of nature being a key role in everyone’s life, Confucianism takes more of an opposite approach and focuses on the political and social side of life.  All four religions or beliefs systems really overlap each other in many ways while at the same time are able to have different beliefs as well; giving people a mixture of everything one could want.