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.

Complexity and Religions

Respond to the complexity with these faiths (Confucianism) and their complex interaction in China.



      Daoism was a more natural approach to Confucianism in its most simplest form. Instead of the heavy focus on Humans and Ethics that Confucianism drove towards (Five basic virtues) Daoism instead was more sensitive towards the flow of nature. For example, violence was considered the ultimate ignorance of nature. The Daoists also disagreed with the Confucian ritual. They found the ritual to be arrogant and unnatural. Daoists also mistrusted language. They believed that quiet was the key to discovery instead of the disturbance of noise.

      Legalism was heavily focused on laws and punishments. They had a very hard-work with discipline style of thinking that would follow them to the fields of work and on the battlefields. Some of the laws they followed were extremely harsh. The Qin dynasty was heavily Legalist focused and it can be seen as the Qin dynasty was one of the most brutal rules in all of history. People came to the conclusion that it was about creating laws to force people to focus and think instead of allowing them to discover it morally.

Confusion: Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism, Buddhism in China

I must admit, I did not fully understand a lot of what the articles/primary sources were talking about, but that made me want to learn more about the different religions in China.

It is believed that because Confucians paid too much attention to the human being himself and not enough attention to what life has to offer, Taoism evolved. Nevertheless, Confucianism and Taoism remain two of the most popular religions in China to this day. Confucianism was the heart of ancient Chinese culture, but did not achieve a nationalized belief, it was more of an ethical system than a religion. This belief brought about an enormous spread of Chinese language and culture around the world. Meanwhile, Buddhism achieved the same goals (spreading traditions & the religion itself) while also brought about new things to Chinese culture (ex: literature, art, ideology). It also encouraged communication with other societies. Lastly, Taoism influenced mostly literature and medicine, but still gained a lot of followers.

In theory, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism are different. However, in practice there is a lot of overlap. Confucianism puts a lot of emphasis on the individual person, much like Buddhism. It is all about living within the structure and hierarchy so you can bring social harmony to your community. At the same time, Confucianism includes the big picture, or the whole community like Hinduism does. Also, man nature and heaven are all linked, much like Hinduism and Buddhism, although in different ways. Confucianism does not worry much about afterlife, or believe in reincarnation. The similarities in all these religions make it apparent how people can be a mixture of these religions, and that they are not mutually exclusive.

China: A New Melting Pot, Or a Salad Bowl?

I think it is interesting to consider the similarities and differences between what we have learned about China, and that we have learned of India. Both China, and India, seem to have an influx of different religions which have similar traits, and core beliefs, but differ in strategy.
For example, Hinduism and Buddhism both believe that in order to obtain a blissful life, and one without suffering, one must go through the cycles of a reincarnation system, before finally reaching their respective heavens. (This is primarily what we discussed in class today, nothing new really). Now the way they obtain the goal is different: see, in Hinduism, one must be the best person that they can in their class, to hopefully move up in the next life. Whereas, in Buddhism, people can begin to take action for themselves, by following the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path. In other words, Buddhists had the ability to change their fate, while Hindus maybe did not).
But, the same, I think, can be said of China. You have Confucianism which is modeled after the Confucius, and then you also have some sort of branch off of Confucianism, which is Taoism. Both are grounded on the idea that there is natural way to living, and that in order for nature to take it's course, there were certain rules that each respective group should follow. Now they way they obtain this similar core belief is very different. Taoists believe that one must act with the whole idea of nature in thought, and based many of their life actions and decisions on balance of Nature. Whereas, Confucianism followed a much more socially lead belief, of filial piety, and relationships with others).
Now what I think is particularly interesting is, whether India and China could be called a melting pot of religion, or a salad bowl? Meaning, Do you think India and/or China's religions and beliefs were able to melt together and work together/ work off of each other to become what they were, or do you think that these two places, and their respective belief systems, were just both there, but not really mixing/melting together to become a kind of culture? Meaning they both coexisted, but nothing more.

Taoism vs Confucianism

Taoism and confucianism share many similar beliefs.  Neither are really religions, but different world views.  They both stress humaneness and respect for other people and things.  Taoism takes this idea farther and embraces the idea that nature has a predetermined way for everyone to follow.  Taoists believe that there is a force that controls nature and influences everything.  Confucianists take the more realistic view that social and family interactions shape people.  They value education and familial respect very highly.  Confucians became more involved in politics and social issues, while taoists mostly remain isolated and enjoy being with nature and meditation.    Taoism is very similar to Buddhism, but less structured.  Many Confucianists study the laws, which is similar to legalists, and they have had a history of being populists.

Religions in China

While Daodejing and Zhuangzi focus mainly on social and religious aspects, Han Fei takes a more governmental stand point on moralities. However, all three are united by the major event of the time of their writings: the fall of the Zhou Dynasty. All three write about finding a balance which would make sense given the chaos of the period in which they were written. In this sense all three describe a means by which one can maintain order in life. For Daodejing "the Way" is talked about in a sense of finding a "constant" or balance. Zhuangi also believes in doing what is "constant". Zhuangi uses the story of the ox cutter as a metaphor for the way in which one should lead their life by going with what is given and working through it in a natural course. The ox cutter doesn't hack at the ox but instead knows to work with what he is given. Conversely, Han Fei writes about matters of the state and what makes a good leader but similarly believes there is a balance that must be achieved to do so. He sees that humaneness gets in the way of being an affective leader. He states "people by nature grow proud on love but they listen to authority" which to me has a less extreme resonance of Machiavelli's "it's better to be feared than loved." Han Fei believes that a good ruler can find a balance between what the people want and what the state needs. The only part that didn't make much sense was when he talked about not needing wise men or knowledge. The same was talked about in the beginning of Zhuangzi where he said knowledge is dangerous. I even in think in Daodejing there is references to learning. Maybe we could talk about this theme in class?

Daodejing

So after rereading the primary sources from the Daodejing a few times over, I think I have finally grasped the Taoism (Maybe). I came to the conclusion that Taoists like nothing. I am not saying they are pessimists and don't appreciate anything, I mean they like the concept of nothing. In the scripture it states that "No-thing penetrates where there is no space / Thus I know that in doing nothing is advantage" later in the scripture it explains the advantages of doing nothing "Do not value goods that are hard to come by / and the people will not steal." "Do not exalt the worthy, / and the people will not compete." For anyone who has seen Spongebob Taoism is synonymous with The Magic Conch. The best way to life a peaceful life is to not do anything that could cause conflict. If you do not want people to compete, don't chose favorites. If you do not want people to steal, don't tell people you have anything worth stealing. I believe that this focus on showing little emotion and self-indulgence could create a society with deep found respect for practicality.

Confucianism and Moral Behavior

Confucianism has a large focus on moral obligation for what is defined as good behavior. This can be seen clearly in the 5 key relationships taught in confucianism, the greatest being the relationship of father and son. The idea of filial piety, a son treating his father with respect, can show how the rulers of china were seen by the people being ruled by them. The father in the respect if the son by behaving respectively. This also can show the practice of worshipping elders and ancestors. By using the sage emperors as a base one can find their place among the moral hierarchy. This shows and interesting development when looking at modern China and having to do the honorable and morally righteous.

Judaism and Greco-Roman

Judaism's sacred text is then Hebrew Bible (a.k.a the Old Testament), which was originally written in the borrowed script of the Phoenicians. The Hebrew Bible tells the story of Abraham, who if he lived, was from southern Mesopotamia. Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, pushing those peoples to the east, spreading Judaism. Later, they conquered the southern kingdom of Israel and pushed them to Babylon. This is known as Diaspora, which is a Greek word meaning "dispersion" or "scattering".  Greo-Romans were ruled by a tyrant, who was am absolute ruler who seized power by usually force. The act of having a tyrant was against the normal political traditions of the community. Also, they put a very large emphasis on science and history to encourage logic and observation skills.

Buddhism

I agree with the statement, especially the fact that Buddhism changed over time as it spread throughout Asia. In China some of the beliefs of Confucianism and Daoism became incorporated with Buddhist beliefs. Buddhism could in part be a reaction to Vedic beliefs, as the foundation of Buddhism is the belief that the attachment to material goods is the cause of suffering. 

Through the ways Buddhism was taught it began to evolve and change, as there are differences in how Theravada is taught and how Mahayana is taught. Both also spread to different areas, which slightly changed how Buddha's teachings were taught based on the area people live. Theravada considered Buddha a great teacher, but made each person responsible for their own journey. Its spread went Southeast and is now in Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. So the spread of two different teachings affected how Buddhism is taught regionally. The extension of Mahayana included the spread of belief in Bodhisattvas and the belief in Buddha as a Godlike figure. It extended from India in a Northeasterly direction. Although the teachings changed, the core beliefs remained the same for Buddhism as a whole.

Buddhism

Buddhism originate in India which is why we see similarities between Hinduism, but Buddhism is connected and sparked directly from the Vedic beliefs.  After Siddhartha was able to step out of his little world of paradise and see the suffering that takes place whether you are rich or poor, the Buddha’s idea on life completely changed. Buddhism connected with the lower classes, with the ideas of not having material things and the idea of reincarnation gave hope to the poor classes that things can get better and there is hope. While Hinduism put up barriers between classes and caused life to lower, the idea of rebirth and the 8 Fold Path sparked a new type of hope amongst the lower classes for a better life. Buddhism showed the world how to achieve nirvana by following the 8 Fold Path, which made the religion more appealing to lower classes causing the religion to spread like wild fire. Buddhism impacted the world, while changing alone the way, Buddhism gave people hope and changed people’s view on the world.   

Buddhism in India

The interesting part about Buddhism in India is the way it caught on and spread. Hinduism allowed for social cohesion with the caste system but it did little to improve the lives of lower dharmas. The idea of rebirth and reincarnation seem to be a way of giving the lower class hope of a better life. But it is the idea of Moksha that buddhism begins to seem appealing to lower class Indian Hindus. The real goal in Hinduism is to be released from the rebirth cycle and in doing so achieve moksha. Anyone can follow the 8 fold path of Buddhism and could possibly achieve nirvana in this life. This is what made it such a popular religion to the lower castes because there was no caste system i  Buddhism. Instead of doing something unfulfilling with your life for the order of the word Buddhism says that fulfilling oneself leads to the order of the word; and that is a really attractive idea to an untouchable.

Buddha's beliefs are a reaction to  the Vedic beliefs. I believe Buddhism is based primarily off of Siddhartha's beliefs and teachings. Once he forced himself to suffer, and furthermore formed his perspective on life, people began to agree with him. His wholesome belief that people should not hold onto material things, and that nothing lasts forever was attractive to people. Once Buddha began to teach his beliefs, it spread vastly. Everything is connected, in history, and everything is constantly evolving. Buddhism has had a huge impact on the world, having over three hundred million practicers today. Like every religion, it has changed along the way. For example, the development of two schools the Theravada and the Mahayana enabled Buddha's word to be taught in different fashions.

Buddhism vs. Hinduism

Since Buddhism has deep roots stemming from India and Vedic traditions/religions, it is not surprising that there are lots of similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism. Due to the relatable teachings of Buddhism, it was quick to spread around East Asia, even more so due to the trade circles in the area. The religion draws on moderation and the idea of reincarnation (giving people hopes of better future lives). Therefore, since the majority of the people who embraced Buddhism were commoners, it is easy to see how the religion spread so quickly and why it was embraced by so many of them.
Nevertheless, one of the biggest reasons why people moved away from Hinduism and towards Buddhism is because of how rituals started shifting from gods to the religious acts themselves. The idea of enlightenment gave people a way out of a somewhat "viscous" cycle of reincarnation in Hinduism, even though it played an important role in Buddhism.

Buddhism Response

I thought it was interesting how the PBS article brought up the religious vacuum occurring during the time that Buddhism was forming. The Vedic religion was becoming dated as the rituals and ceremonies became less about the Gods and more about the rites themselves. The Vedic religion also believed in reincarnation which states that life is a constant cycle of births and deaths. This creates a problem for Buddhism because the main goal is to escape suffering, and therefore constantly being reincarnated brings with it suffering in each new life. This is where Buddha said the only escape from this cycle of suffering is to find enlightenment. Conversely, Hindus believe that the only way to achieve happiness is to accept the caste an individual is assigned at birth. This caste system left the Brahmins, religious leaders, at the top of the social hierarchy. They were the ones in charge of all religious ceremonies and acted as the liaisons between the gods and the world. However, to Buddhism caste is irrelevant and the process of enlightenment is very much one of personal reflection. Buddhism even included women which was very progressive for this time. I believe that Buddhism became increasingly popular during this time because it gave the individual power over their beliefs and taught that suffering comes from within and therefore the power to end suffering comes from inside each individual. However, Buddhism is not completely its own entity. Many influences from Hinduism still influenced Buddhism. The most prominent example is the practice of meditation. While mediation is very prominent in Buddhist religions it was present long before the rise of this religion.

(The PBS article didn't touch on the influences/spread of Buddhism throughout Asia...unless I missed something...)

Buddhism for Dummies

“The core beliefs preached by the historic Buddha and recorded by his followers into sutras and other scriptures were, in part, a reaction to the Vedic beliefs and rituals dominant in South Asia. Buddhism changed over time as it spread throughout Asia, first through the support of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka, and then through the efforts of missionaries and merchants and the establishment of educational institutions to promote its core teachings.” 

        Although some of the principals of Buddhism may have been carried over from the traditional Vedic belief system, I think that the core beliefs were different and formed individually from Buddha's own thoughts and beliefs. Buddha bases a lot of his core religion on meditation, achieving enlightenment, and ending the belief that material objects. Despite this, Buddhism did evolve as a religion over time as it spread across all of Asia. Despite the fact that it would take well over 1,000 years to spread all around. Trade between China and India (The homeland of Buddhism) would cause Buddhism to spread into China where it experienced some changes. One such change was that the Stupa took a new form in China. Another major example was how Buddhism was meshed with other Chinese belief systems such as Confucianism. This would cause a major change in the emphasis of Buddhism in China. In India, emphasis was on personal salvation acquired by living a celebate life; however, Chinese Buddhists encouraged filial piety to complement the Chinese tradition of ancestor worship. Culturally, Buddhism also experience change in the arts within China.

Somebody already used the word "parallels" so I am gonna say similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism

The video about the Buddha brought back so much nostalgia from Mr. Spray's class. I still remember the music from freshmen Ancient World History. So after refreshing up on my Buddhist history, I started picking up on the many parallels that my peers also noticed. First off, the founding location of both religions is in the similar region of Northern India. Second, both religions believe that reincarnation exists and existence is suffering. Both religions believe that there is a way to stop the cycle of reincarnation, however both religions take a different direction in achieving enlightenment. Hindus believe that one must accept their position in life and be a good person in order until on can move up the social ladder and achieve enlightenment. Buddhist on the other hand believe that through an eightfold path one can achieve nirvana. Personally, I believe that Buddhism budded off from Hinduism, similar to how Christianity formed from Judaism. Hinduism existed in Northern India for 1000 years before Buddhism appeared, so it would make sense that Gautama Buddha's beliefs to incorporate many Hindu beliefs.

Buddhism and such

“The core beliefs preached by the historic Buddha and recorded by his followers into sutras and other scriptures were, in part, a reaction to the Vedic beliefs and rituals dominant in South Asia. Buddhism changed over time as it spread throughout Asia, first through the support of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka, and then through the efforts of missionaries and merchants and the establishment of educational institutions to promote its core teachings.” 

Buddhism and Hinduism are often thought of as very similar if not branches of the same religion. Although they both were founded in Northern India, they do have many differences. Hinduism was founded first, and thus certain aspects of Hinduism can be found in Buddhism. Both religions believe  in karma, what goes around comes around, and samsara, the cycle of birth, life, and death. Budda believes that it all comes from suffering, something that everyone can relate to. A very important part of Hinduism that isn't in Buddhism are the Yogas. I wonder why since the two religions are so similar, are the branches of one another or two different religions completely.

While Buddhism was formed as a reaction to the Vedic religion, Hinduism was formed as a reaction to the popularity if Buddhism.  That caused Buddhism to split between mahayana in the north and thervada in the south.  Both religions have evolved along with each other.  Even though they are different religions, they share many similarities, such as non-violence, reincarnation, and the belief that suffering is caused by attachment to physical things.  Buddhism and Hinduism are reactions to each other that allowed for a system of belief for a variety of different people and castes.

Buddhism and Hinduism Parallels

Hi,

I found the movie viewing pretty interesting, and now have a lot of questions about it. But, in regards to the influence of Vedic beliefs on Buddhism, I think there are definitely some parallels that can be drawn between the two beliefs. And, I can understand why in some places society was strongly based around Hinduism (and the Vedic traditions), yet also how it became much less popular, with the new influx of Buddhism. Both belief systems rely on the idea that everyone suffers in their life. In Hinduism, someone suffers if they are in one of the lower classes, and those that are placed into the higher classes meant that they had suffered in past lives and were just closer to the Ultimate Goal: Nirvana. In Buddhism, Siddhartha agrees with his people, and says that everyone suffers, no matter the person, no matter the class. People will eventually and inevitably feel some loss, suffering, and/or illness. His philosophy is, instead of waiting for your next life to hopefully be better, humans need to look at their situations with more positivity, and hope. Under his guidance, his people can find a life of true bliss, and awareness. I personally think that as these two belief systems began to intermix with each other, Buddhism became popular very fast because you didn't have to wait as long to find happiness. The idea that one can change their fate as they live, and are not stuck in a caste because they were born into it, and therefore deserve to suffer, became much more desirable. Yet both beliefs have the same undertone that everyone is suffering, and working toward a better life (which, may or may not have had an influence in the creations of Buddhism, and may be why there are even similar parallels, since the Vedic ideas were around for a while before Buddhism).

While I agree with some points that Jared Diamond brought up, I truly believe that agriculture helped to improve civilization and started the progress for mankind in a positive direction. While hunting and gathering helped to sustain mankind, without agriculture mankind could not have continued to move forward in a positive direction. Diamond says, "Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us" which is true but without farming and cultivating land hunter-gatherers could not have survived with continuing without settling. An agriculture lifestyle helps to supply somewhat of a support and security to a community instead of depending of continues migration.

 

I don't know if this is gonna work because I'm on my phone but hello everyone!!!!  I found "The Plough and The Now" really really interesting. I never knew that women originally did most of the agricultural work, I kind of assumed that it had always been the dudes because it has been that way for so long. Like griffin said in the beginning of his post ( I read the first 3 lines because I had no idea what I should be writing)  about the quote that history shapes what we become. It's amazing how one simple thing such as invention can change the course of history. I wonder if life would be different today, and if the inequality of sexes would be what it is if women had still continued to run the fields. Since farming was the only way of work for a while, since the women weren't doing the farming anymore, the only real other option was to stay home. It's funny because way back when it was always women that were above men in different societies, and then now it's basically the opposite. I wonder if the plow was the single turning point in history that made that change, and if not what other things caused it?

Potential connections between the two articles?

The idea that farming-based societies were a mistake could likely be supported by the fact that when societies used farming tools such as hoes or plows it had a direct impact on how their society was run gender-wise. Even now there are still unresolved issues in regards to gender-roles and specific genders places in society potentially as a result of the use of hoes vs. plows and by extension because of farming. I thought there were some connections that could be made between the two readings as the plough and hoe had such seemingly major effects on gender roles in society today. Also, Farming could be seen as divisive due to the fact that it separated societies by gender roles, and class divisions. 

The Worst Mistake in Human History slightly altered my perception of how beneficial farming was and how we perceive hunter-gatherers today. I was wondering why we perceive hunter-gatherers or people from non-agrarian societies as primitive, because the belief that there was no time for art or culture in those societies was shown to be false in Jared Diamond’s interpretation? Even today there are still hunter-gatherers and their lifestyle has not been proven to be any less fulfilling than people from our society. Diamond even said that these “so-called primitive people” were still able to “have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors”. So why do we see them as primitive when their quality of life seems to be just as satisfying?

Plough and Now

I thought it was interesting how "The Plough and Now" talked about how societies that primarily used the plough over the hoe became a more male dominated society, and that it still influences people's decisions in the modern world. For example, people who come from plough societies think men should be the first hired when unemployment is high. To me it seems that the plough instilled a social construct on these societies that they still conform to today. This can tie into the other article which talked about the division of the sexes as agriculture began to rise. Were there other factors that led to this division or was the rise of labor due to agriculture the main cause?

I disagree with Jared Diamond's ideas that agriculture was detrimental to human development.  Even though agriculture provided people with less nutritious diets, and they were subject to famine and droughts, the benefits from community life and advancements that came from it made it worth the cost of poorer health.  Had we not formed farming societies, we might not have advanced technologically and socially the way we have now.  The creation of a system of wealth and class divisions mad people strive to do better and work harder to maybe move up in social class.  Agricultural communities were essential to begin the advancement to classical society.

In plough and now it is argued that women's roles in today's society where influenced by whether their ancestor's societies used ploughs or hoes. I agree that this gives evidence to the argument that the agricultural revolution was a true revolution in the way it changed culture. There was indeed a paradigm shift within the neolithic age. In hunter gathering society, male and females stood on more equal ground when it came to amount of work contributed.

I believe the Neolithic Revolution was a revolution. However, I do not believe it was inevitable. Humans could have easily kept living their lives day by day, only hunting and gathering what they needed in the present. Thinking into the future is smart and advanced, but does not always need to happen. We see people living in the present every single day, while they are doing homework for class during their free,  procrastinating, or anything else. The adoption of the plow in mesopotamia definitely was an improvement that made life easier.

I want to agree with Jared Diamond's argument but I am torn. The reading last night Bulliet seemed to suggest that the "hunter-gatherer" life style of the Paleolithic age was in fact a good way to live. Barring injury and assuming a successful hunt and foraging expedition, there remained as many as 19 hours left in the day for leisure activities. With little disease, limited warfare (iceman murder ?) and a small global population, why would human beings switch to an agrarian society that eventually perpetrated social and environmental ills on a massive scale. It must be that hunter gathering did not meet basic caloric needs or that agriculture was some how more efficient. I must read further.

Look Mom, I'm Blogging: An opinion on Jared Diamond by Luke Manory

I personally disagree with Jared Diamond's theory that the Agricultural Revolution is the "WORST" mistake in the whole history of the human race. Although he makes arguments with valid points such as how farming brought along new epidemic diseases, I believe that if we had not made it to the agricultural revolution, we as a race would have made no progress. We simply would have stagnated and continued to roam the continents as nomadic tribes until we all died which is incredibly boring to me. Also when Jared Diamond said: "We lived as hunter gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all?" What did he mean? It sounds like he's implying that the agricultural revolution is still occurring and that we never entered the industrial era. Keep in mind this was written in 1987.

Agree with Diamond

Though I am biased to the Agricultural Revolution, mainly because my entire life has been a a result of it, I have to agree with Jared Diamond's points. Life may have been simpler in the Neolithic life style, with less art and infrastructure, it was also healthier, led to less gender inequality, they also did not "ruin" the land. As Jared Diamond says last night, agricultural lifestyle created "a class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others"

The Plough and Now

Usually I am very swift when it comes to picking up social media, however, tonight was a challenge. After fidgeting with this website for quarter of an hour and doing a few Google searchers, I finally figured out how to post something. The first article I read was "The Plough and Now". After reading the article, right off the bat I noticed that the article provides some confirmation to the quote we learned on Monday. I think the quote was "history determines who we will become". The article discussed how societies which had plows usually had men be the majority of the working force. Even  in societies where plough have existed, but may no longer be used, men continue to be the majority of the work force. Because men have been the majority of the work force, they will continue to be the workforce cause history has started a precedent. While I agree with the article that places with ploughs are more likely to have men be the driving work force, I don't agree that the plough would cause a patriarchy. In the second article "The Worst Mistake in Human History", the article mentions that in New Guinea women do the hardest labour such as carrying bags of rice that weigh more then them. In this society women performed more difficult labour, however were still viewed as inferior. The biggest question I have for these articles is "what is a mongongo nut?"