Instructions: Read Thinking Historically: The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective from page 89 in the World Civilizations textbook and then answer the questions below. Your answers should be written as a short essay that addresses each question. Use the writing focus below to help you write from a comparative perspective. *Remember, your essay must include evidence from the document and the chapter. Cite all evidence using parenthetical references. The document should be cited by title the chapter should be cited as Stearns followed by the page number. You will post your answers in the comment box. I highly recommend that you draft your answer in a Google document and then copy and paste your answer into the comment box. After you have posted your essay in the comments, respond to two classmates posts.
Document: Thinking Historically: The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective. (Pg. 89)
Writing Focus: Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work.
1. Why did the classical civilizations seem to need radical social inequalities?
2. What was the relationship between wealth and social position in each classical civilization?
3. If India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, what did China and the Mediterranean cultures use?
After reading the document, The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, I noticed how different the societies were than they are now. Let me explain. Classical civilizations seemed to have needed radical social inequalities. I say that because if you were at the bottom of the social chain, you were basically the peasants of someone that is a higher rank. With every rank, there is almost always one more rank above you. “Each classical civilizations emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial difference between elites and the majority of who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). How much money you had basically determined your social rank. The emperor was the highest ranking person in the classical civilizations and he also had the most money out everyone else. With every rank lower, the less money they had, but that didn’t mean that they were stuck in that social rank. According to The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “Opportunities for mobility varied. . . If wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility. . . Cicero, for example, came from a merchant family. Various classes also shared some political power in city-state,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). India used, Hinduism to compensate for social inequalities. In The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “India’s Hinduism helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards through reincarnation for those who submitted to their place in any given existence,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). So, since India used Hinduism, China and the Mediterranean use Confucianism. Also in The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). As you can see they way that they did things back then are different than how they are now. Even though I didn’t go into detail about our society today, I trust you know about considering that you are apart of it.
ReplyDeleteChina did use Confucianism as a compensation to social inequalities. However, the Mediterranean did not. The Mediterranean refers to The Greeks and Roman whose beliefs and ideas had nothing to do with those of the Chinese. I really the way you started your essay, but I feel that it would of been more effective if you had included that civilizations now are based completely on social and economic mobility while classical civilizations had little to no mobility. I feel that adding this to your essay would of made it a better academic argument rather than you just stating your opinion.
Deletei completely agree with you on number one[ With every rank, there is almost always one more rank above you. “Each classical civilizations emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial difference between elites and the majority of who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). ] I have the same answer , but just written a little differently.
DeleteIn Classical Civilizations, wealth normally correlated with the status in their respective hierarchies. “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired… China’s bureaucratic system… continued to come from the landed aristocracy… [In Greece and Rome] importance of acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 2). Wealth was a factor, but not the determining one in all of these cultures. “The priests in India, the bureaucrats in China, and the aristocrats in Greece and the Roman republic predominated” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 1). So, really the only society among the three that relied on wealth to be the ruler is the Greco-Roman culture, because the power was among the aristocrats. With social stratifications, the basic struggle for resources led to a difference among the people that became the basic pyramid of the people. Leadership demands and resources led to stratification, to explain how, each society developed a specific ideology that explained why they existed… (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 1)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on almost all of your points and examples, but what you said regarding the second question I'm a little unclear on. I think wealth played a much bigger determining factor than you made it seem. After reading you ideas for the last question it made more sense, as well but I think you could have written a little more to explain yourself. However, overall I get your point.
DeleteI agree with most of what you said; however, like Tyler said, I think that wealth played a bigger role in the other cultures. For example in the Mediterranean society, even though it had an aristocratic emphasis, the importance of wealth gave other non aristocrats important and economical opportunities . However, in the last few sentences it made more sense. I agree with you on most of it though.
DeleteHonestly, I see your point, although I feel that wealthy doesn't always play a role in social castes. The main thing in India was religion and China it was government roles and occupations. I see your point about how wealth is involved in caste systems although it isn't the biggest thing.
DeleteI agree with almost everything you said but I don't seem to understand your prespective on question number two. I think wealth played a much bigger role than what you made it seem. But after reading your answer for question three I can understand were you are coming from. But overall I think you did a good job!
DeleteI liked how you had really good explanations for the evidence that you used, but like Tyler and Szymon said, wealth should be given more credit where it is due for what standing you had in social stratification. However, what you answered for questions 1 and 3 were nicely put, and were in the general radius of what I answered, and it helped me understand my own responses better.
DeleteClassical civilizations had many radical social inequalities, but why? They needed these social inequalities due to their circumstances, like economic resources and lifestyle. “[T]he civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). The rulers needed people to do work to be able to keep the government running, so they made social inequalities to categorize people. Each category had their own job, like the untouchables in India. However, what did wealth do for these classes? India allowed movement within the caste, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility. China allowed a very small number of talented people from below, but most bureaucrats came from the landed aristocracy. Mediterranean society emphasized aristocracy, but the importance of acquired wealth gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities. Plus, to maintain these social inequalities, each place had different ways to support it. India used religion, such as Hinduism, encouraging reincarnating to a better caste. China used philosophy, like Confucianism, because it urged culture values of obedience and self restraint. Mediterranean culture allowed local authorities to rule to form community bonds. “Greece and Rome left much of the task of managing the social hierarchy to local authorities; community bonds… were meant to pull different groups into a sense of common purpose” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).
ReplyDeleteI agree with the part where you said that rulers needed people to work in order to let governments continue running and that's why they made social inequality, in order to categorize people. They were categorized into different social classes and those social classes determined their jobs.
DeleteYou have a well structured paragraph that allows your reader to have a clear understand of your main points. I agree with all of your answers but where you mention something about the untouchables in India I would've added the textual evidence “India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demeaning but often vital”.
DeleteWell done! Your paragraph is well written and wonderfully structured. What stands out most to me is how you somehow restated the questions to fit your answers. Meaning the way you incorporated the questions.
DeleteI agree with everything you said. Your paragraph was very well structured and organized, I like how you say that "The rulers needed people to do work to be able to keep the government running". Overall a good paragraph, good job.
DeleteThe classical civilizations needed social inequalities so that they could control the lower classes to ensure that they prospered and prosper (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1). Social inequalities helped to provide order and a hope to one day get to a higher social class and help your family. In India the caste system allowed you to move up if you acquired wealth, but you could not move up very far in the caste. China’s social class allowed you to move up based on your talents. Rome’s social caste allowed you to move up into the caste when you acquired wealth just like India “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little because it tied people to their basic social and occupational position by birth.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2). In Greece and Rome they used local rulers to compensate for social inequalities. China used Confucianism to promote virtues and self-restraint.
ReplyDeleteI like how you set up your essay and I agree when you said that “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little because it tied people to their basic social and occupational position by birth, because it was based on the text, I also used it myself
Deleteshort, but got all good points across. I like it. I think you should have made more points, or put more details and ideas in it. Looking at this makes me think that you rushed through it and didn't read any of the chapter. I do agree with what you're saying though. Its quick and to the point, nice job.
DeleteI have to agree with Quentin that this felt very rushed. You didn't really rephrase your questions into your answers, leaving the reader confused, but luckily we knew what the questions were. But then again it was short and to the point. Next time I would try to make the paragraph flow more smoothly and try to incorporate the question into your answer. Other than that good job Isaiah!
DeleteClassical civilizations used social inequalities to determine the social classes. The upper classes believed that they should control the lower classes. “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1).
ReplyDeleteWealth and social position depended on one another. In India and the Mediterranean, your social class depended on the amount of wealth that you’re family has. The ability to rise to a higher class was considered social mobility. “ India’s caste system allowed movement within, castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility,” ( The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). China, however, relied a little more on talent.
China used the government and philosophies such as Legalism, Confucianism, and Daoism. The Mediterranean relied on social hierarchy and community bonds.
I totally agree with what you said about Chinese people needing talent so they can rise up and only a few were picked, however I would of explained a little more like only a few in the lower class were allowed to rise up in education.
DeleteI completely agree with the part where you said that the people in higher classes felt that they needed to control the people in lower classes in order to ensure their own prosperity. They felt that way because they didn't want to run the risk of the lower classes rising up and over throwing their power, so in order to ensure that that didn't happen, they felt the need to control them and make sure nothing like that could happen, plus they thought that the lower classes needed someone to keep them in order. The felt superior to them, which they were, so they thought it was okay to boss them around and to make sure that they were doing what needed to be done,
DeleteI agree with your statement that wealth and social position depended on each other, both India and the Mediterranean involved wealth in the social castes. "In Mediterranean society.. the importance of acquired wealth(particularly in Rome) gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities."(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective).
DeleteIndia's caste system did not necessarily depend on the amount of wealth you had but rather the caste you were born into, however, to some extent wealth was important to caste. I noticed that your essay lacked citation from the book, you had good points but you did not provide deeper insight to your points. For example, if I were you I would of added as evidence that China allowed mobility through the talent of an individual by bringing up the civil service exam.
DeleteI agree with every thing you said. It's obvious we share the same ideas. Even though your answers are concise, you get right to the point, elaborate or somewhat summarize what you are trying to say. Well done!
DeleteI agree, you did a good job on getting to the point and still gave solid points on the article. I think you did a good job overall, but it just seems that your third answer was pretty short and mediocre.
DeleteClassical civilizations seem to have needed radical social inequalities because some people wanted to keep their share of the scarce resources to themselves. They also did not want to do the work that was considered humiliating. A hierarchy even made leadership an easier task since most of the population would have no choice but to follow or else risk punishment. “The vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy. Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 1).” “India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demeaning but often vital. So did China’s ‘mean people,’ who included actors. As Greece and then Rome expanded, they relied heavily on the legal and physical compulsions of slavery to provide menial service and demanding labor ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 1).”
ReplyDeleteWhile the elite were wealthy, their social position primarily relied on their birth. Even if one attained great wealth, it would have little effect since they were born poor. “The status of merchants varied despite the vital role commerce played in all three civilizations ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 2).” “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 2).” “China’s bureaucratic system allowed a very small number of talented people from below to rise on the basis of education, but most bureaucrats continued to come from the landed aristocracy. Mediterranean society, with its aristocratic emphasis, limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of the acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some non aristocrats important economic and political opportunities ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 2).”
To compensate for social inequalities, India utilized religion, especially Hinduism. China used Confucianism to, despite the many philosophies, keep everyone on the same page. Greece and Rome tried to convince the public about the vitality of the presence of an aristocracy with a position in politics, but it proved to be difficult as it only worked on men who owned land. It was not until Christianity that the general populace was soothed. “India’s Hinduism helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards through reincarnation for those who submitted to their place in any given existence. Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement -- despite varied religions and philosophies -- on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 3).” “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in the political system. This combination could work well, although some groups, including slaves and women, were always excluded. It tended to deteriorate, however, when poorer citizens lost property. Yet no sweeping new social theory emerged to offer a different kind of solace to the masses until Christianity began to spread ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 3).”
I agree with what you said about the upper class hierarchy because they were selfish and despised doing hard work and labor and make the less fortunate to do it. Since the lower classes were not rich or prestigious, they had no choice but to do it, so it was like their backs were against the walls because they had to do it to survive and make ends meet but it was brutal, and if they did not do it they would be severely punished.
DeleteI agree with how you described the differences between the classes. It is and was true that the upper class was selfish and despised hard work. While the less fortunate are left to do oddball type jobs or be merchant's who were wealthy but not considered very highly. When you described the upper class not wanting to work and being selfish it reminded me of in ancient times the wars were fought by the peasants and lower classes while the upper classes sit back and watch. If they didn't obey their leaders they would be punished for not following orders.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with everything you discussed! Your choice of words and they way you elaborated on your answers/quotes, helped me to understand the document more clearly. The quotes you used backed up your answers very well.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that classical civilizations needed to change in social classes was because in Rome there slave rebellions and in China there were peasant uprisings. Massive revolts organized by aggrieved peasants broke out( Stearns,45). In Greece and Rome they used tactics to show that the importance of aristocracy was legit but this usually left out the women and peasants, it also deteriorated when peasants began to lose their property (“The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”). India’s social class system was the most difficult to overcome because once you were born your job was determined which if you were lucky to be a politician you would make more money over someone that was born into being a merchant. China’s social classes were a little different but still very hard to overcome, only a few talented in the lower class would rise on basis of education so that they would be able to get better jobs or occupations. Unusually talented individuals from a peasant background might be given access to an education (Stearns,53). Mediterranean was basically the same as China in the sense of only a few would be picked to rise to the top, as said by “ The Classical Mediterranean Comparative Perspective”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, 2). According to “The Classical Mediterranean Comparative Perspective” China used the Confucianism values so that everyone would obey and have self-restraint, creating an agreement, despite other religions and philosophies, by defining how gentle men and common workers should act and behave. (“The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, 3).Ultimately reduced intellectual conflict and established long-lasting order(Stearns,48).
ReplyDeleteI don't fully understand your answer to the first question. I interpreted the question to be asking why they used social inequalities. I feel your answer is stating something different. In your response, you say they needed to change social classes but I don't think that's what the question is asking.
DeleteI agree with your article, but like Kristina said your first question does not seem to answer number 1 the way I thought it was supposed to be answered. But that does not mean You answered it incorrectly, it just how you interpreted it.
DeleteClassical civilizations seemed to need radical and social inequalities because “vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The Classical Mediterranean in the Comparative Perspective, 1). In every civilization, there is different social classes and within those classes, order is taken place. This allows a civilization to function well and efficiently. For example, “India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demeaning but often vital” (The Classical Mediterranean in the Comparative Perspective, 1). The relationship between China’s and India’s wealth and social position had its differences and similarities. In India, their “...caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Social position in India was also tied down by your birth. Opposingly, in China, their system allowed, “...a very small number of talented people from below to rise on the basis of education” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Similarly, every classical society had the same idea that justified their social divisions. Chinese and the Mediterranean cultures used different ways of leading their people. India’s Hinduism helped understand the hierarchy promising rewards of reincarnation.”India’s Hinduism helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, ATQ 3A). On the other hand, Confucianism avised good manners and a difference between gentlemen and commoners, “Urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint...on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave,” (The Classical Mediterranean in comparative Perspective, ATQ 3A).
ReplyDeleteI agree with you overall and I like how you bring up the Indian untouchables. I also liked how you elaborated on the Indian culture which helped me understand more about the answer. Great Job!
DeleteClassical civilizations seemed to need radical social inequalities because they had “...common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). In common civilization, it is necessary for a neat organization to occur. For example, “India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demeaning but often vital” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1).
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between China’s and India’s wealth and social position differed in several ways. For example, in India, their “...caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Also in India, your social position was determined by birth. While in China, their system allowed, “...a very small number of talented people from below to rise on the basis of education” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Similarly, every classical society had the same idea that justified their social divisions. Mediterranean and Chinese cultures used different methods of mentoring their people and the dividing of their classes. Hinduism in India “...helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). On the contrary, Confucianism “urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint...on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave,” (The Classical Mediterranean in comparative Perspective, 3).
This is very good and well backed up but I think that if you incorporated examples from the textbook your answer would be better and significantly stronger. For example this quote from the textbook could have been added to back up your first question's response, "Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred.¨ (Stearns, 96). Other than that your responses were great you had ideas that I did not think or incorporated to my text. Great Job!
Deleteyou did a good job at answering the questions but if you added some more details in your answers it could help your response. For example you mentioned India used Hinduism, and later you mentioned how confucianism was different but I don't think you said that China was the one to use that method
DeleteClassical civilizations had radical social inequalities as a means to ensure their own prosperity. Most all classical civilizations emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with a small group being elite and the rest of the population did manual work (Thinking Historically, 1). Usually those at the top felt a need to ensure their own needs and prosperity through controlling the lower groups normally through government (Thinking Historically, 1).
ReplyDeleteThe groups who possessed the most wealth within classical civilizations were the brahmans in India, bureaucrats in China, and the aristocrats in Greece and Rome (Thinking HIstorically, 2). India’s caste system was the most extreme amongst the classical civilizations, making it almost impossible for a commoner to become wealthy (Stearns, 74). Despite the harsh distinction between the lower class and the upper class, India’s caste system allowed for some mobility within castes; however, it allowed for little overall mobility (Thinking Historically, 2). China’s system allowed for a small percentage of the population to rise on the basis of education yet most bureaucrats continued to come from aristocracy (Thinking Historically, 2). Under the Han dynasty the first civil exams were carried out allowing for lower class men to mobilize into the bureaucracy (Stearns, 42). On the contrary to India and China, Mediterranean civilization had limited opportunities to rise to the top (Thinking Historically, 2). In Greece and Rome the use of slavery was extremely important to the wealthy thus gaining them extreme wealth (Stearns, 96).
India used Hinduism as a means to justify social inequalities, by the Hindu beliefs of promising rewards through reincarnation the people submitted to their place in hopes of gaining such rewards if they did their job well (Thinking Historically, 2). Hindu beliefs however gave hope to the lower castes that they could reincarnate into a higher caste (Stearns, 69). In China, Confucianism justified social inequalities through cultural values of obedience and self-restraint (Thinking Historically, 3). Greece and Rome scorned manual labor and justified social inequalities by the means of slavery (Thinking Historically, 3). The use of slaves caused tension between free farmers and aristocrats (Stearns, 95). However, despite these justifications rebellions and peasant uprisings developed in China and the Roman countryside (Thinking Historically, 3).
I
I like how you bought up prosperity as a point for question 1. I can see why these classical civilization would seek to thrive after conflict. That is something I had not thought about. To add on further, what I understood was that “...common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” contributed to such radical inequalities (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou bring an interesting point on question three when you talk about Rome and Greece. When I was answering the question, I did not pick up on the fact that the use of slaves caused tension between free farmers and aristocrats. All I was able to comprehend from the text was that Mediterranean cultures just tried to emphasize the importance of aristocracy. Now with that in mind, the answer made more sense to me because I would not understand how the Mediterranean cultures would only emphasize aristocracy and think that they would be able to keep social inequalities that way.
DeleteI agree with all of the points made in your forum, I actually really enjoyed you take on the first question although i agreed and enjoyed it. Would you also agree that they need to have social inequalities for the means of limited economic resources? In the document The classical Mediterranean in Comparative perspective it states “The vital similarity between civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and economic resources of the agricultural economy” (Historical thinking, 3) This shows he idea that they need this inequalities because the tension the low resources brought on.
DeleteI completely agree with your response to question three. I didn't exactly write what you did, in fact, i didn't even get that idea when reading the text. You really opened my eyes, I interpreted the Mediterranean's social inequality to be about making your own choices and living with them. But i like your interpretation far better, it makes a whole lot of sense . I also agree with your response to question one because it is exactly what each classical civilization wanted. Using the words "to ensure their own prosperity," perfectly described the situation. High rulers felt the need to make sure they could control people lower than them with laws, in order to keep things flowing.
DeleteClassical Civilizations all had defined social class distinctions. To quote the document “Each classical society generated ideologies that explained and justified social divisions.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). The upper class used social stratification to control the lower class. “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they has to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity.”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Wealth doesn’t affect social standings, as much as resources do. Access to resources is what defined the social hierarchy of Classical civilizations. “... the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). While India used religion as a way to justify social stratification, other nations used different methods to differentiate social classes. “Chinese confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement - despite varied religions and philosophies - on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 6). Roman and Greek social hierarchies were based on local authorities, rather than the whole civilizations philosophy. “Greece and Rome left much of the task of managing the social hierarchy to local authorities” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 6).
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your response, however in the article it does state that wealth can open up opportunities to move up in the social hierarchy. "The importance of wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities" (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective).
Delete
DeleteI would have to disagree with you that wealth didn't affect social standing as much as the resources. They both had equal contributions in the societies they appeared in. For example, India's social hierarchy didn't let you move your caste without it, " India's caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired..." (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). Also in the document they talk about the importance of their wealth for the Mediterranean. ".. but the importance of acquired wealth(particularly in Rome) gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities."
Nice job. You answered all the questions well, but you used mostly facts from the document. I would've liked to see you throw out more ideas of your own into your response. Other than that i agree with really everything you said, especially when you stated that India used religion to justify social stratification. Like they used religion as an excuse so the lower class wouldn't rebel?
DeleteI don't agree with your response for the second question because wealth did affect social standings, like Kristina and Alyssa said. Wealth gave opportunities and allowed movements in castes. For example "...acquired wealth gave some non-aristocrats important economic and political opportunities." There was an existing relationship between wealth and social standing. Although I do understand why you stated that resources affected social standings. I also think that you could have added information from the textbook to back up your responses. Maybe you could have even caught a section where they talk about wealth in relation to social standings.
DeleteI agree with most of your points and used many of them myself. However like The other girls before me who have brought up the same point that the relationship between wealth and social position allowed you to move up in a social caste, but I think I could help better explain our point while with another quote from the document The classical Mediterranean in Comparative perspective "..In emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in the political system." I think this helps explain that with wealth they were able to move up in the social caste by being able to accumulate a better occupation. Not only this but this could help enforce question number three, Greece and Rome used the fact of being able to move up in social position as compensation for having social inequalities.
DeleteThe classical civilizations seemed to need social inequalities, mainly in the form social hierarchy, because they simply need an excuse to get what needed to be done. According to the document The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, you see how India use the social inequalities to get the work done by “India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demanding but often vital,” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, #1). Not only in India but in Greece and then Rome as well “... They relied heavily on the legal and physical compulsion of slavery to provide menial service and demanding labor,” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, #1) If they all had the same resources and factors to get all the work done equally then they would no longer have to have such defined social inequalities. According to Stearns, “the majority of India’s living in peasants villages has less frequent contact with people of higher social caste…” (stearns, 72). This demonstrated that the other classes with more resources were separated from those who had few.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between wealth and social position in each classical civilizations, was based on the socially acceptance in an occupation someone accumulated, or the easier your job may seem, in terms of manual labor. According to the document, The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “The status of merchants varied despite the vital role commerce played in all three civilization,” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, #4) See at though even they are in a low social class they have become necessary for the civilizations they come from. According to stearns, “The majority of India’s living in peasants villages has less frequent contact with people of higher social caste…”(stearns,72). This shows the difference between the people who have wealth and better jobs and how they are different from those who are lower caste and their positions in comparison.
To compensate the use of social inequalities in the other two civilization, they use a different approach. In china they according to the document The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “Chinese Confucianism urged general values of obedience and self restraint…” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, #3) also according to that same document the Mediterranean use “...but the importance of acquired wealth, (particularly in Rome)gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities,” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, #3) meaning they used the philosophies of the Confucian and the chance to have opportunities others didn't. According to stearns, “Confucianism was a system of ethics..” (stearns, 49). This quote shows who that the ethics shows that we can get rewards for doing good having virtuous ways demonstrated in china.
I agree with everything you said. I like the quotes that you used to back up your answers as well as the way you explained your reasoning so. This helped me get a better understanding of the subject.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe classical civilizations seem to need radical social inequalities because they needed to rank by social class and rule. They shared a common desire that related to social hierarchy. They needed distinctive social inequalities for the correct function of their economic benefits and rule. As stated in this quote, ¨This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and the lifestyle and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy¨ (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). Tensions arose throughout. These social inequalities were key ideas to how their society worked. The upper and lower classes seemed to have confrontations. Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred.¨ (Stearns, 96). The relationship between wealth and social position in each civilization varied although each civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2). An example of these relationships apply to the upper classes, to ensure their prosperity they controlled lower groups. Domination was also seen. The ones who dominated were bureaucrats in China, priests in India, and aristocrats in Greece and Roman Republic. Applying to control, large landlords were head of this for they would force farmers to become tenants or laborers or to become and join the urban lower class crowds. However, there was a constant tendency , most pronounced in Rome, for large landlords to squeeze these farmers, forcing them to become tenants or laborers or to join the swelling crowds of the urban lower class” (Stearns, 95). To conclude this answer, the relationship between wealth and social position was based on their acceptance and stature. India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, the Chinese Confucianism used cultural values and the Mediterranean cultures emphasized the importance of aristocracies. In the desire to create a communal agreement the Chinese Confucianism valued obedience and self restraint. “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement---despite varied religions and philosophies---on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). Mediterranean cultures emphasized the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system. Basically they all had a value to follow for compensation in relation to social inequalities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post completely. For your answer for number 1 you could of also mentioned that the upper classes wanted to control he lower class to ensure their prosperity, instead of putting it for number 2. Other than that, everything is well answered and to the point.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI truly believe you understood the topic strong because on number three, I kept trying to explain the ways the Chinese and Mediterranean cultures compensate for social inequalities but I had troubles because the things I found about it did not make sense to me so when I was checked previous posts, I stumbled upon yours and it really helped me embrace the topic better which in result help me better understand what I was reading. I also do agree with you on number one completely because they did need distinct social inequalities to rank and rule.
DeleteI understand but I decided to add it to question 2 since question 1 already had an assigned quote. Thanks for the feedback though(: Thankyou Kinich you made my day I'm glad I helped (":
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe classical civilizations needed radical social inequalities because it helped them form a clear social hierarchy and distance between elites and people who did manual and easy work. In the article, it clearly states that India’s untouchables and China’s “mean people” did the manual and menial work; “India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demeaning but often vital. So did China’s ‘mean people’, who included actors” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). According to Sterns, “The majority of Indians living in peasant villages had less frequent contact with people of higher social castes…” (Sterns, 72). This quote states that the different social classes had less contact with the classes below them. According to document The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “The status of merchants varied despite the vital role commerce played in all three civilizations” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). The relationship between wealth and social position in the Mediterranean and China; the easier your occupation is, the higher you are ranked within social classes/position. In India, the untouchables had the dirtiest jobs and were ranked the lowest among social classes/positions. According to Sterns, “ The majority of Indians living in peasant villages had less frequent contact with people of higher social castes…” (Sterns, 72). This quote shows that if you had the dirtier jobs or were not as wealthy, you had less contact with those who were. According to document The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, China used “...general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint,...” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3) instead of using religion to compensate for social inequalities. According to The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, the Mediterranean culture used “...important economic and political opportunities.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Classical Perspective, 3). According to Sterns, “Confucianism was primarily a system of ethics…” (Sterns, 49). The Chinese culture used general values of obedience and self-restraint to compensate for social inequalities, Confucianism was a system of ethics which strongly valued obedience and self-restraint.
I overall agree with you on your forum because you hit all of the points with no trouble. Your second answer was my favorite because you stated it then gave a great explanation. It made me get a different perspective on the relationship between wealth and social position in the Mediterranean and China.
DeleteClassical civilizations seemed to depend on social inequalities because they were all the people ever knew. Hierarchies formed early on and were enforced in all parts. When the lower class people started to question the systems, they were treated as children and convinced that the system was necessary. “China and particularly India generated value systems that might convince people in the lower class and the upper ranks that there was some legitimacy in the social hierarchy” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). Despite the doubts and questions that came from the lower class, these structures were successful. According to the document, “Indian and Chinese social structures survived better than Mediterranean structures did” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). According to the text, “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). This shows that once you are on top, you are given a state of authority. However there are not very many opportunities if any, to move up within the different social structures. Having wealth, can increase your chance at moving up. “The importance of acquired wealth gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). While India used Hinduism as justification, Greece and Rome left local authorities in charge of managing the social hierarchy. “The city-states, were meant to pull different groups into a sense of common purpose. They also relied on military force and clear legal statements that defined rights according to station” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). The Chinese used Confucius ideas as their justification. “Defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective).
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the hierarchy being successful even though the lower classes questioned it, because some did not have a say and the few that did were lucky.
DeleteAlthough the methods for maintaining the social structure in these societies were successful most of the time there were periodic rebellions and social unrest. And rather than being treated like children, they were treated more like tools in order to ensure the prosperity and luxury of the upper class allowing them to have more time to focus on their spirituality, education, and other activities which were not as open to the general public. When they questioned the social system they weren't necessarily treated like children for it, it was more forced upon them and they followed it in order to avoid punishments or discrimination.
DeleteI liked how for your first question you created the analogy of the lesser people being treated like children. I think it is entirely accurate. I also really liked that you included how hard it was to move up in social ranks. I think you did a really good job.
DeleteMany classical civilizations needed an isolated social hierarchy, the higher classes controlled the civilization and made the rules to get rich and carry on the family name. According to The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity,”(Stearns 87). Every society had a reason for why they were there, whether it be because they were generals, peasants, or priests. That is why the social classes are so separated and where they are.”The 5th-century Athens, the major decisions of state were made by general assemblies in which all citizens could participate- although usually only a minority attended,”(Stearns 88). In Greece and Rome, usually Greece, most of the social hierarchy decisions were left on the rich aristocrats to gather like minded intelligent men to unite and create a democracy and give citizens freedom to make decisions and to keep their civilizations in a democracy and not an empire ruled by one man. In India, their brahmans were able to blind their people by using a religion called Hinduism to help hold the social order. It was successful because it promised the people of India that if you stayed in your class you would be rewarded with an afterlife that granted you a better life. China’s government followed the ideas of Confucianism which proposed that the leader shall take responsibilty of his people and behave with manners. In India, you could move up in the hierarchy, but you needed wealth and you moved up very little. In many cases, money did not matter in India because wherever you were born into doing, that is what you must do. In all social classes the wealthiest are on the top and the poor are on the bottom. In Rome if you were an Aristocrat, then you were wealthy and you owned a lot of money. In China, during the Han dynasty did not matter with money. “Even though many people weren’t wealthy, many citizens in China, Rome and Greece had opportunities to move up in their social classes. “Although most bureaucrats were drawn from the landed upper classes, who alone had the time to learn the complex system of Chinese characters, individuals from lower ranks of society were occasionally recruited under this system”(Stearns 46). “Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system”(Stearns 88).
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the Classical Civilizations, the elites and the majority were clearly separated. Classic civilizations seemed to need radical inequalities to maintain order in their communities because of the limited economic resources for the people. “...Civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy ” ( The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 1). The wealth accessible to the people mostly determined their social ranking. In each civilization your rank was determined by your income, with very few exceptions. “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired… China’s bureaucratic system… continued to come from the landed aristocracy… [In the Mediterranean society] importance of acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 2). China and the Mediterranean used local authorities or Confucianism to counteract with the social inequalities. “ Greece and Rome left much of the task of managing the social hierarchies to local authorities…. they were meant to pull different groups into a sense of common purpose… Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement… by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 3)
I agree with your point of view, I actually really liked how you answered question one. I personally didn't see it that way but now reading it, I understand the question even more. Great Job!
DeleteI agree with basically everything you said. I also like the way that you answered the first question. I think it was a little out of the box and made me think about it. I completely agree with the rest, I even used the same quote as you for one of the questions. Good job showing the separation between the communities.
DeleteYour post was great. The way you answered question number one was great however I think you could have added more about it by using the textbook. In your response you showed everything else including the differences in each communities well which helped me develop a better understanding on how thing were. I also used the same quotes for some of my answers. Overall this is a well developed response which is also very precise.
DeleteThe classical civilizations “needed” radical social inequalities based on their resources. The document, The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, stated in the classical societies “Each relied primarily on an agricultural economy”(Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1). Therefore, your access to the particular societies agricultural resources defined your status. The upper class had more responsibilities, such that they had to take care of the agriculture, and yet take care of the people. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy.” (Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1).
ReplyDeleteIn classical India the upper class or the top of the social pyramid were the brahmins or priests. Thus meaning wealth did not play a factor in societies in india during the classical era. Other civilization’s social pyramids differed from ancient India’s, Greece and Rome upper classmen were the aristocrats, otherwise known as the rich land owning people. The one percent. This was not the case in classical China, your money mattered because most of the bureaucrats were born into aristocracy. The bureaucrats ran the show, but very little could become one if they passed a civil service exam. All of these ancient civilizations had so little in common, but all had a social pyramid. meaning they all had a very similar style of living. “Groups at the top of the social pyramid reflected different value systems. the priests in India, the bureaucrats in China, and the aristocrats in Greece and Roman Republic pre-dominated.” (Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2). India’s upper class related the the lower classes through religion. It compensated for the social inequalities. China, during the confucian era (551-479 B.C.E.), gave praise to the lower class and the peasantry work. The mediterranean civilizations used slavery to get the menial service and labor done. So the mediterranean civilization’s upper class didn't try to meet the needs of the lower class. “As Greece and then Rome expanded, they relied heavily on the legal and physical compulsions of slavery to provide menial service and demanding labor. Greece and Rome gave unusual voice to farmers when they maintained their own property but tended to scorn manual labor itself, a view that helped justify and perpetuated by slavery. Confucianism urged difference but offered praise for peasant work.” (Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3)
I agree with your answers to the questions, but you could use more evidence from the text book to help. Your first answer was something I didn't seem to think of but I agree with it. Each classical society did seem to rely on an agricultural economy because if they did not have one, they would not have a way to grow crops, make useful everyday items, and more.
DeleteThough their access to resources played an important role in a persons social standing, it definitely was not the only factor. However I must say that all of the contributing elements, such as wealth, birth, talent, and education, some how tie back to what resources they were able to attain. I disagree with your statement on how the upper class had more social responsibility, I understand that in societies such as China the upper class kept in mind and strived for the well being of society all together but in societies such as India, they merely used the lower class as tools to help their own prosperity, there was very limited communication between different castes and the main purpose of the lower class was to carry out the laborious tasks that need to be done. Money, wealth, and personal gain in China was not placed of high stress due to the Confucian Philosophy, their social mobility was based more on talent and educations and goals created with the intent of personal gain were considered almost of a taboo. Which explains why merchants were considered part of the lower class despite their fortunes. The social mobility between classes in each society relied on their value and belief systems.
DeleteI agree with you completely on your first answer. Resources did play a part in classical civilization's need for radical social inequalities. The upper and lower classes seemed to have confrontations over these limited resources. I would also like to point out that these social inequalities were key ideas to how society worked in the classical time period. Your piece of evidence, “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” is also a great contribution(Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1).
DeleteI agree with you completely on your first answer. Resources did play a part in classical civilization's need for radical social inequalities. The upper and lower classes seemed to have confrontations over these limited resources. I would also like to point out that these social inequalities were key ideas to how society worked in the classical time period. Your piece of evidence, “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” is also a great contribution(Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1).
DeleteThe common purpose for social inequality in China, India, and the Mediterranean was to ensure that demeaning and laborious tasks that were undesirable yet vital to society were carried out. Including India’s untouchables, China’s mean people, and the slaves of Greece and Rome. The social divisions also promised and promoted the upperclass’ prosperity (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1). Considering the different values and belief systems, social mobility varied within each culture. In China, due to the confucian system, they did not put high stress on wealth or personal gain. Which explains why merchants were considered of the lower class despite their fortunes, therefore social mobility did not rely on an individual’s wealth. However, “China’s bureaucracy system allowed a very small number of talented people from below to rise on the basis of education” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2) On the other hand, India’s caste system allowed for no mobility between castes, or classes; It only permitted mobility within one’s own class which could be reached through and gain in wealth but overall flexibility was highly limited. In Rome and the Mediterranean, having acquired wealth permitted you to have some political or economic power and opportunities, but “Politics and formal culture in Greece and Rome were mainly affairs of the cities-meaning that they were of intense concern only to a minority of the population” (Stearns,95) Showing that the majority of people had no place in economics or politics. In order to keep these social divisions in place, each culture used a different element to compensate the inequalities among classes. “China and particularly India generated value systems that might convince people....that there was some legitimacy in the social hierarchy.” Greece and Rome on the other hand “attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 3). The Indian Caste System forced people to stay within their caste and persuaded them to stay within it’s boundaries and occupations with the threat of dropping to a lower caste or becoming an ‘untouchable’ if they deviated. The Hindu religion provided some form of relief from this harsh social system by providing hope for better conditions in their next life if they carried out their tasks to the best of their abilities. (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 3). China mainly stressed the Confucian Philosophy, regardless of the many other philosophies, in order to maintain their social hierarchy. They stressed that you should know your place in society and respect your superiors wether you agree with them or not. Despite all of these different methods to hold their inequality system together, each society faced rebellions and resistance at one point in time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. I like how you backed up your answer, not with the citations, but how you elaborated it. I personally think it is wonderful in how much society has changed over the years as well. Besides that little side note I just put, I think our point of views are similar.
DeleteI agree with your key points in your paragraph, although you could've given evidence for the first sentence where you state the tasks necessary for their society. "vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and limited economic resources of the agricultural economy”.
DeleteAll classical civilizations shared the one common need for social hierarchy. They were needed to keep social class in organization and rule. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy.¨ (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). What the quote means is they demanded the distinctive social inequalities so that their economic benefits and role could function appropriately. ¨Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred.¨ (Stearns, 96). The upper class and the lower class often seemed to clash but without one another, the society would not work. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2) Vital similarities between civilizations affected and caused tensions in complex leadership and agricultural economy. To guarantee their own accomplishments, the upper classes seemed to control the lower classes. Greece and Roman Republic, priests in India, and bureaucrats in China were aristocrats who dominated. “However, there was a constant tendency , most pronounced in Rome, for large landlords to squeeze these farmers, forcing them to become tenants or laborers or to join the swelling crowds of the urban lower class” (Stearns, 95). What the text is saying is that large landlords would require farmers to become tenants, laborers, or to join crowds of the lower class. While India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, the Chinese Confucianism valued obedience and self-restraint to create some kind of agreement through many different religions and philosophies. “Chinese Confucianism urged general culturals values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement---despite varied religions and philosophies---on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). When the Mediterranean cultures used a more difficult attempt, they tried to emphasize the importance of aristocracy and offer elements a part in a political system. “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said it is well thought out and too the point. The way you backed up your answers was great and i like how you also elaborated upon it. I believe that it is a great thing that society has changed the way it has in the years. Overall I think our ideas were the same but yours helped me get a better understanding.
DeleteI agree with what you said completely. You appreciated how you not only used the document but you used the textbook and then you elaborated further on the subject. I agreed with your argument that confucianism offered a more obedient type of living while Hinduism emphasized the idea of religion so one was more belief and the other was more of manerisms.
DeleteThe classical civilization needed radical social inequalities to stabilize the structure of an empire. They needed the wealthy and “superior” in order to create the backbone of the civilization, while the lower class is used for manual labor and menial jobs that upper class refused to do. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work.” (The Classical Mediterranean in comparative Perspective, 1). The social position was mostly based on birth. Based on China’s system, it was very rare for someone who is considered lower class to rise above their label and be above what they are and that's just how things were. Except some civilizations valued wealth more than social statuses. The wealthy were seen as above the normal standard of man, or even superior. “This was the most rigid classical social structure by birth. China’s bureaucratic system allowed a very small number of talented people from below to rise of the basis of education, but most bureaucrats continued to come from landed aristocracy. Mediterranean society, with its aristocratic emphasis, limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some non aristocrats important economic and political opportunities.”(The Classical Mediterranean in comparative Perspective, 2). India used religion (Hinduism) to compensate for social inequalities, China however was based more on talent and used philosophies and types of government such as Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism to run their civilizations. The Mediterranean civilization used hierarchy and social bonds. “Urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint...on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave,” (The Classical Mediterranean in comparative Perspective, 3)
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. However, there is something I would like to add to your answer to question 2. Yes, a persons rank in society was based on the rank they were born into and that is was rare for them rise above that rank. But the reason that is, it goes back to keeping a stabilized structure in the empire, because what if the poor people were to run the empire, with no work ethic and they got that position because there were no ranks in society based on wealth. If you apply that to modern days, the people who run for Governor or President, they have to do a lot of campaigning to get people to vote for them. That alone cost a lot of money. I just thought I would elaborate more on that.
Delete“Stabilize”… I wonder if a communism-type of empire would work if stability is needed. Maybe in a perfect world, but perhaps not in reality. It appears to be a natural part of our psychology for there to be a hierarchy. If it were build around talent or work ethics instead of birth, then the society would be more volatile. There is always someone better so people would not be able to secure their position for too long until someone else comes by. This can be a positive thing though. Competition breeds innovation, whether it be in technologically or socially. Otherwise, people get complacent until a brave soul finally takes a risk.
DeleteClassical civilizations seem to need radical social inequalities because “each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work…..Groups at the top of the social pyramid reflected different value systems”(stearn .89) The ruling class ( by right of birth) leaders would be served by everyone else’s. People in the middle to lower castes worked harder than the upper class.The people in the lowest caste did the dirty work that was necessary in order to keep the civilization running. People in the higher castes did not do the physical work but was important for the civilization to be successful. If there was no social inequalities then there would have been arguments on who does what. This was a way for the higher caste people to continue living a good life and not have the threat of having a hard physical work life. In some cases it gave a lower caste people a reason to work hard in order to have a chance to move up into a better life.the relationship between wealth and social position in each classical
ReplyDeletecivilization is said in the text “ Opportunities for mobility varied also.India's caste system allowed movement within castles, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility.This was the most rigid classical social structure because it tied people to their basic social and occupational position by birth” (chpt.5 pg 89) This was the most classical social structure because it placed people to their position by birth.. If you were born as a merchant, it was impossible to become a priest in India. In China, the bureaucrats were at the top of the social class, followed by peasants and followed by slaves .China’s system low classes rise classes due to education, but most bureaucrats came from the aristocracy. Greece and Rome were the only classical civilizations that allowed ordinary citizens to be able to elect citizens for city-state assemblies and hold some political rights along class lines. India used religion to compensate for social inequalities WHILE China used Confucianism.” Chinese confucianism urge general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint”(stream 89).
I completely agree with everything you discussed. Your answers are really well written and you explained them very well. I also enjoyed your choice of words.
DeleteI agree with you 100%. I like how you used more then one example for you answers. It really helps show that you are trying to really prove a point.
DeleteWith all classical civilizations they all shared the one common need for social hierarchy. They were needed to keep social class organization and rule. ¨This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and the lifestyle and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). What that means is they needed the distinctive social inequalities so that their economic benefits and rule could function correctly. ¨Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred.¨ (Stearns, 96). The upper class and the lower class often seemed to clash but without the social inequalities the society couldn’t function. Because of the need for social inequalities you have to understand the relationship between wealth and the social statuses. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). The more wealth you had earned and were born into the high you were according to the social hierarchy. “The importance of acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some nonaristocraticts importance economic and political opportunities” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Although this is just how it played out, some people abused the power. “However, there was a constant tendency , most pronounced in Rome, for large landlords to squeeze these farmers, forcing them to become tenants or laborers or to join the swelling crowds of the urban lower class” (Stearns, 95 “Chinese Confucianism urged general culturals values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement---despite varied religions and philosophies---on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). The believed in Confucianism to such a point that it compensated for the inequalities. On the other hand Mediterranean cultures used the emphasis of aristocracy. “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). Both ways thought they were correct but evidence shows the Chinese and Indian cultures lasted longer.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with everything you're saying. Your forum is well written, you used descriptive words, and I like how you went over some of the questions.
DeleteThe classical civiliations seem to need radical social inequalities because of the relationship between their resources and lifestyle. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1). The relationship between wealth and social position in each classical civilization is that more economic resources means living a more lavish lifestyle. “...complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1). Also, higher hierarchy groups controlled lower groups. “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Although India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, China used Confucianism cultural values of obedience and self-restraint. “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement--despite varied religions and philosophies…”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,3). The Mediterranean cultures used local rulers. “Greece and Rome left much of the task of managing the social hierarchy to local authorities; community bonds, as in city-states, were meant to pull different groups into a sense of common purpose”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,3).
ReplyDeleteI agree with the entirety of your post. I agreed with your answer for number two the most. Wealth did influence their lifestyles greatly. If they were in a lower class, then they had to work more than those in the upper class. Your post was well made and had good answers!
DeleteAll of your answers were practically the same as mine, so I can't say anything else but that I agree. My only complaint would be to elaborate more on wealth. Your practically answered that question in two sentences. I think you could of talked about how wealth was treated in each place individually, but you summed it up pretty well in those two sentences. Other than that good job!
DeleteI understand what you are saying Manny and I agree I could have elaborated more on wealth. Thank you.
DeleteI agree tremendously with what you said about there being a relationship between lifestyle and resources. I also like how you added the quote along with it, I also used it, because it showed how social inequalities were really effected by lifestyle and how people lived their lives. I agree with your piece and really related to a lot of it in my own work.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn classical civilizations there was a need for radical social inequalities. The reason for this social hierarchy is that if the higher social standing people did not suppress the lower class they wouldn't of had the back bone they needed to make it an empire. Also, the lower class would be free to do as the pleased.Furthermore, that wouldn't be in the best interest of the empire of those who didn't have to work to survive. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2)”. Wealth was a factor in some but not all of these civilizations. For example, the more wealth a person was entitled to, the higher their social position would be. If the person wasn't wealthy, they would need to work to survive, therefore they would have a lower social position. However, if we look at merchants, their status varied between civilizations even though it’s a necessary job. “Groups at the top of the social pyramid reflected different value systems. The priests in India, the bureaucrats in China, and the aristocrats in Greece and the Roman republic pre-dominated. The status of merchants varied despite the vital role commerce played in all three civilizations (3)”. Lastly, with the use of religion in India to compensate for social inequalities, the Chinese culture used force, legal structure, and also the general urge of obedience thought through confucianism. “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self restraint, creating some agreement…(6).” Furthermore, in “Greece and Rome left much of the task of managing the social hierarchy to local authorities…(6)”. The Greeks and Romans also relied on military force and clear legal statements to compensate for social inequalities.
I agree with your article, but even though you used quotes. I feel that you did not use enough quotes to back your answers. But the ones you did use I feel backed answers completely, and entirely. Like your quote for your first answer is perfect.
DeleteI agree with most all of your essay. What really caught my eye was how you wrote about wealth in social inequality. You gave great examples in the text to back up your evidence. I also agreed with how you said that wealth was not a huge aspect and how you explained how it worked in the other countries. Over all this was a great essay.
DeleteThe classical civilization needed social inequalities to maintain order and stay organized. It was said in the document that, “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective-1). Without the organization and separation of the people everything would be disorganized and civilizations wouldn’t last very long. A way to keep organized was caste systems and social status based on wealth; each classical civilization had their own system of classes and social position mostly based off of wealth. An example from the text would be: “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective-2). The only thing about this system was that it varied and had differences in different civilizations at the top of the pyramid. “The priests in India, the bureaucrats in China, and the aristocrats in Greece and the Roman republic predominated,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective-2). Although India did have a little bit of moving around in their caste system based on the acquiring of wealth, it mostly relied heavily on the thought of reincarnation and the reward of it through a positive existence, China and the Mediterranean on the other hand “relied on military force and clear legal statements that defined rights according to the station,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective-3).
ReplyDeleteI agreed with everything you said! I would also like to include an example for your number one answer, which had to do with the fact that they had social inequality to maintain order. An example would be that in "China and particularly India generated value systems that might convince people in the lower classes and the upper ranks that there was some legitimacy in the social heirarchy"(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1).
DeleteIn classical civilizations they all shared the one similar need for social hierarchy. They were needed to keep social class organization and rule. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and the lifestyle and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). Basically they needed the distinctive social inequalities so that their economic benefits and rule could function accurately. “Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred.¨ (Stearns, 96). The upper class and the lower class often seemed to have different “ideas” but without the social inequalities the society couldn’t function. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective) Necessary equivalence between civilizations affected and created tensions in complex leadership demands and agricultural economy. To guarantee their own prosperity, groups at the top of the social hierarchy controlled lower groups. The ones who dominated were aristocrats in Greece and Roman Republic, priests in India, and bureaucrats in China. “However, there was a constant tendency , most pronounced in Rome, for large landlords to squeeze these farmers, forcing them to become tenants or laborers or to join the swelling crowds of the urban lower class” (Stearns, 95). What the text is saying is that large landlords would force farmers to become tenants or laborers or to join crowds of the lower class. While India used religion to reimburse for social inequalities, the Chinese Confucianism value obedience and self-restraint to produce an agreement through different religions and philosophies. “Chinese Confucianism urged general culturals values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement---despite varied religions and philosophies---on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). While the Mediterranean cultures used a more strenuous attempt, they tried to stress the importance of aristocracy and offer elements a share in a political system. “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).
ReplyDeleteGreat job overall, but one thing I would like to add is that don't you think that the social inequalities were there to differentiate between each class, not only to help function society? " Each classical civilization distinctively defined the position of the lowest orders" ( The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1).
DeleteClassical civilizations needed radical social inequalities because it persuaded the people, in lower and higher classes, that there’s rightfulness in the social hierarchy. According to the document The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, “China and particularly India generated value systems that might convince people in the lower classes and the upper ranks that there was some legitimacy in the social hierarchy,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). According to the textbook out said, "In 5th-century Athens, the major decisions of state were made by general assemblies in which all citizens could participate - although usually only a minority attended," (Sterns, 88). I put this because it shows that the higher class assembled the meetings but the lower class could attended them. The relationship between the wealth and social position in each classical civilization is whatever occupation you have, it is the money from that is your wealth. In The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective it said, "India's caste system allowed movement within castes, of wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility. This was the most rigid classical social structure because it tied people to their basic social and occupational position by birth," (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). In the textbook it said, "This is one reason so many farmers went into debt. It was also one of the reasons that large landlords gained increasing advantage over independent farmers, for they could enter into market production on a much larger scale if only because of their greater access to capital," (Sterns, 96). I said this because it shows that farmer didn't have a lot of wealth, and landlords had wealth so they bought them. If India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, China cultures would be a bureaucratic system and Mediterranean culture would be aristocratic emphasis. According to The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective it read, "China's bureaucratic system allowed a very small number of talented people from below to rise on the basis of education, but most bureaucrats continued to come from the landed aristocracy. Mediterranean society, with its aristocratic emphasis, limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some non aristocrats important economic and political opportunities," (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). According to the textbook it read, “Like all organized states, the Chinese government operated military and judicial systems,” (Sterns, 47).
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you answered. I liked how you provided text evidence from the book and the document, and how you put that China, India, and the Mediterranean both were similar in some points, but also differed in perspective. You could have provided more explanation to go along with the text, but overall it was well-explained and backed up with appropriate evidence from both the text and the document.
DeleteWith all the classical civilizations, they all shared the one common need for special social hierarchy which were needed to keep social class organization and rule. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and the lifestyle and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). What that meant was they needed social inequalities so that their economic benefits and rule could function correctly. “Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred” (Stearns, 96). Both higher and lower classes often seemed to collide but without the social inequalities, the society couldn’t function correctly.Vital similarities between civilizations affected and created tensions in complex leadership demands and agricultural economy. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). To ensure their prosperity, groups at the top of the social hierarchy would control the lower groups. The ones who dominated were aristocrats in Greece and Roman Republic, priests in India, and bureaucrats in China. “However, there was a constant tendency , most pronounced in Rome, for large landlords to squeeze these farmers, forcing them to become tenants or laborers or to join the swelling crowds of the urban lower class” (Stearns, 95). What the quote is saying is that landlords would force farmers to become tenants or laborers or to join crowds of the lower class. While India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, the Chinese Confucianism value obedience and self-restraint to create some agreement from the varied religions and philosophies. “Chinese Confucianism urged general culturals values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement---despite varied religions and philosophies---on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). The Mediterranean cultures used a different approach, they tried to emphasize the importance of aristocracy. “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).
ReplyDeleteClassical civilizations did have radical social inequalities, but for what purpose?
ReplyDeleteThe main reason was that people needed to know there place and stay in their social group. Social inequalities helped provide a sense of hope that people could move to and upper class to better provide for their families. They also did not want to do work that was considered to be humiliating. This created an organized society.”groups at the top of social hierarchy judges that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1).
The relationship between wealth and social position was overall based on birth disregarding how wealthy you were. Merchants status was different all throughout the three civilizations. For the Indians it depended on the family you were born into but each civilization defined positions differently. Even if you were wealthy it had little effect on your social position though the Indian caste system allowed mobility there was also only very little movement.”Indian caste system allowed movement within castes,if wealth was acquired,but little overall mobility.This was the most rigid classical social structure because it tied people to their social and occupational position by birth”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2). As for the Chinese the bureaucratic system only allowed movement depending on education otherwise there was no movement.”China’s bureaucratic system allowed very small number of talented people from below to rise on basis of education but most bureaucrats continued to come from the land of aristocracy”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2). Mediterranean society put a limit on mobility.”Mediterranean society, with its aristocratic emphasis, limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of the acquired wealth (particularly in Rome) gave some non aristocrats important economic and political opportunities”('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 2).
India used religion especially Hinduism to compensate for social inequalities. “Hinduism helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards through reincarnation for those who submitted to their place in any given existence”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). Although China and Mediterranean cultures did not. China used Confucianism to keep everyone on the same basis. “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement -- despite varied religions and philosophies -- on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).Greece and Rome tried to put emphasis on the importance of aristocracy. But it did not work out because it excluded many groups of people. This was only until Christianity came around. “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in the political system. This combination could work well, although some groups, including slaves and women, were always excluded. It tended to deteriorate, however, when poorer citizens lost property. Yet no sweeping new social theory emerged to offer a different kind of solace to the masses until Christianity began to spread ('The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,' 3).” Also “ In 5th century B.C.E Athens, the major of state were made by general assemblies in which all citizens could participate-- although usually only a minority attended.This was called a direct democracy, not rule through selected representative"(Sterns,88). They allowed leeway for the citizens within the set rules.
While reading your post, I wondered how these governments were even started in the first place. In chapter one, we learned that civilization began with agriculture and then aspects of civilization, such as government, sprouted. How? Is it that humans are biologically attracted to the most competent in the pack? It starts way back then. The strongest or most intelligent lead their people. They were confident and charismatic enough to be influential. Eventually they controlled a village in some way. That person had a family who inherited whatever they had. The village in turn respected them, because they were associated with that person. This goes on for a long period of time and happens on a larger scale. They migrate and “conquer” new lands. The family’s bloodline and influence has expanded in proportion to the new increase in population. Traditions and values are passed down, which are followed because it has been around (long) enough to be accepted. The government, which is comprised of one family, creates laws to protect themselves as well as their ancestors and progeny.
DeleteThis is just a theory that I came up with on the spot. I simplified a lot of things... I would love to hear any thoughts though, not just from you!
The classical civilizations seemed to need radical social inequalities to make sure that the higher ups would still be in a position of power no matter what happens. According to the document, “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). The distance gave the elites a bit of breathing room to retain their positions to eventually pass down to someone in their family line. The relationship between wealth and social position in China, according to the document “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, “China’s bureaucratic allowed a very small number of talented from below to rise on the basis of education, but most bureaucrats continued to come from the landed aristocracy”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). China had limited opportunities to rise up to the high class, due to education, but it was still larger than India’s caste system. In India, according to the document “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). This meant that in India, it was harder than the Mediterranean and Chinese civilizations to rise up due money being the only way. In the Mediterranean, according to the document “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective” , “Mediterranean society, with its aristocratic emphasis, limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of acquired wealth(particularly in Rome) gave some non aristocrats important economic and political opportunities”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). This system had the biggest opportunity to rise up if you had a substantial amount of wealth to back it up. India’s main focus to compensate for social inequalities was religion, but China and the Mediterranean culture used different things. In “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, its shows how “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement-despite varied religions and philosophies-on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1)”. The Chinese were mostly secular(non-religious), but they compensated due to them stating how people should behave in different scenarios. In the Mediterranean, according to the document, “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective”, “Greece and Rome left much of the task…….relied on military force and clear legal statements that defined rights according to station(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1)”. This shows how Greece and Rome were kind of like Legalists in their way of relegating social inequality, and how the higher ups made lower-level authorities responsible for managing it.
ReplyDeleteClassical civilizations seemed to value social inequalities because of their "vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and limited economic resources to the agriculture economy," (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, ATQ 1A). While the relationship between wealth and social positions went hand in hand. They went hand in hand because when you were wealthier you tended to have a higher social class, " the "good life" for an upper class Athenian or Roman included active participation in politics and frequent discussions about the affairs of state," (Pearson 88). So in other words if you were wealthy in Roman times you could participate in things that would effect your daily living patterns for example voting on a law. China and the Mediterranean cultures used different approaches to leading their people and the division of the classes." India's Hinduism helped justify the hierarchy promising rewards,"(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective ATQ 3A). While Confucianism urged good manners and a difference between gentleman and commoners. Confucianism "urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint....on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentleman and commoners should behave, " ( The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, ATQ 3A). With China they had more of a philosophy rather than India's way of leading by a religious view.
ReplyDeleteThe classical civilizations had many differences and common things amongst them. In particular, the classical civilizations seemed to have the need for radical social inequalities. One reason being that it helped keep order; for example, “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). Relative to that of the social inequalities, there was also a clear relationship between wealth and social position. Each civilization was dependent on the different value system each had. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). Lastly, India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, China and the Mediterranean had similar but different styles when addressing this. Though India used Hinduism, China’s “Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self restraint ” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). Another example would be the Persian empire was the center of a new religion. “Zoroastrianism emphasized the importance of personal moral choice in picking one side or the other “( Stearns,84).
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily agree with your point on how China having a similar style to India in justifying the social stratification of the present hierarchy. China's Confucianism was not similar to Hinduism because it promoted a completely different way of life. Confucianism allowed for less movement in its social order, and in the way that it shuns the merchant's. India allowed for more movement, but only if wealth was found. They are comparable, but are not similar in the way you described.
DeleteFirst and foremost, I definitely agree with the fact that you mentioned that "...there was also a clear relationship between wealth and social position," because there was; I felt like wealth, and power (at times), determined your social position or lifestyle. However, even though I also agree with the fact that you mentioned that China and India used similar efforts because they both taught religion, I don't agree that the Mediterranean culture could also be compared to those two because Greek and Rome did NOT use religion, they used local authorities and community bonds for that sense of common purpose.
DeleteClassical civilizations seem to need radical social inequalities to separate the elite from the peasants.
ReplyDelete“Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative, 1).
The elites were wealthier and had easier lives while the lower caste groups were stuck with the manual, menial and degrading work.
“India’s untouchables performed duties culturally evaluated as demeaning but often vital. So did China’s ‘mean people,’ who included actors. As Greece and then Rome expanded, they relied heavily on the legal and physical compulsions of slavery to provide menial service and demanding labor (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1).”
The higher a person’s social position was, the wealthier they were. The social position did however, rely on where that person’s was born, If he/she were born into a wealthy or poor family“The status of merchants varied despite the vital role commerce played in all three civilizations (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2).”
If a person in India were to acquire some wealth, then they were allowed to move up within their caste. “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,2).”“India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired..”
India’s use of Hinduism helped compensate for social inequalities “India’s Hinduism helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards through reincarnation for those who submitted to their place in any given existence (Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,3).”
China however, used Confucianism to compensate for social inequalities.
“Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint...On the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The
Mediterranean cultures,such as Greece and Rome, relied on military force to compensate for social inequalities
“...relied on military force and clear legal statements that defined rights according to station (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,3).”
They also used, “local authorities; community bonds, as in the city-states, [to] pull different groups into a sense of common purpose (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).”
You show great flow with your answers. I like how you almost explain the evidenced that you are presenting. I agree with you completely.
DeleteIf the higher social standing people did not surpress the lower class they wouldn't of had the backbone, they needed to create an empire. Lower classes would be free to do what they want . In no cause did the social cement work perfectly social unrest surfaced in classical civilizations, as in major slave rebellions in the Roman countryside or peasant uprisings in China. In each classical civilization a man's wealth measured the amount he is entitled to, higher social position. If someone wasn't wealthy they would need to work to survive, so they would be lower down the social ladder. Opportunities for mobility varied also. India's castle system allowed movement from within castles.Chinese bureaucrats system allows people with talent from a lower class to rise through the ranks, with a good education with wealth that someone has it is able to get people high up the ladder at birth.
ReplyDeleteGreat flow with the answers, I like the word choice and grammatical correctness. However, there is no evidence from either the document or the textbook in your answers. I would recommend going back through the text and getting direct quotes to back up your claims.(Your claims mirror many of the themes presented in the text so examples shouldn't be too difficult to find!)
DeleteYou have many good points throughout your paragraph. But like Noah said, you should include citations to support where you're getting you information from. It's important to incorporate them so that if people want to know more about the subject then they can easily go find it. Other than that, I really like your word choices!
Delete
ReplyDeleteClassical civilizations used radical social inequalities because they needed different occupations and they were classified by social groups. Your social group was based on your job, so if you had a menial job that means almost nothing then you were most likely a peasant. If you were a political leader or a religious leader then you were higher up on the caste scale. Leadership also depended on this situation. People who were higher on the caste system ruled over the lower class people, they had to “carefully ensure their own prosperity (Sterns, A). Wealth doesn’t always play a role in social positions. Merchants are normally wealthy but in China, merchants are considered on the lowest social class. China has a caste called “the mean people”, these included Actors. We know actors as incredibly wealthy and famous people who we praise, but then they were lower than peasants. Your social caste was all depended on your job. India used religion to develop classes. The Brahmans, or religious leaders, were on the top of the caste system. They were above warriors and political leaders. In China, they were based on your political position. The higher your position was, the higher you were on the caste system. In Greece and Rome, that’s where wealth was important. Although the people who are not wealthy had opportunities for political positions and economic roles.
I liked your systematic method of answering the questions, I just wish you would have had more citations based on the text or document. Also, wealth wasn't always what decided your position in Greco-Roman culture. It was sometimes determined by your physical prowess in the case of the Spartans. I especially liked your example of an actors place in society and how it has changed since the Classical Era. It surprises me at how different the views on jobs are between then and now.
DeleteI agree with Josh, I think you did very well on answering the questions themselves, however I do not think you added enough examples from the text to help support the answers you made. Although The example you did provide, was very helpful to your text and overall I think you did a good job on presenting your answers. (:
DeleteI also agree with Josh and Adeline; I feel like you could've had more citations to better enhance your paragraph, and also, I also feel like wealth wasn't the only thing that defined people's social status, it was also power. However, I do think you covered all points in your paragraph, and overall, I think you did a good job!
DeleteClassical civilizations needed radical social inequalities to permit a more isolated society with lower to higher classes. It was believed that it would help keep things more under control since there were complaints with the higher classes. In the document it says, “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy,”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). The higher classes felt like they needed to control the lower classes even though the lower class were already doing more labor than all higher class people combined. They wanted to control them without fear of them rising up to higher positions. “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1). Wealth and social positions shared an important relation in these civilizations. “Opportunities for mobility varied also. India's caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2). In China, only a minimum amount of talented people were selected to receive a higher education on that certain skill. While in India and the Mediterranean, they had similar ideas. They were put into a specific caste depending on where they were born and it was difficult to receive a higher social position.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your response to question one because you elaborated more on why they had social inequalities. You stated that the higher classes felt as though they needed to control the lower class. I like the fact that you consider and give credit to the lower class because they're already doing more work than the others. The upper classes wanted to weaken them so that they didn't uprise, but that didn't work out. I also agree with your response to question three, because i thought the Mediterranean civilization also had to do with social class. What i don't agree with is the fact that it wasn't included in your blog that in India, they had a better chance to move between classes. There was a more likely chance to move up depending on money and what they were born into. Other than that, the rest of the essay is good!
DeleteThank you. I now see where I should have added the fact that in India, they had chances to move up depending on wealth and what family they came from. With their wealthy families they could live in an easier society and if they were poor, it was harder for them to uprise.
DeleteThe classical civilizations had distinct differences. but a variety of similarities as well. All three classical civilizations needed a form of social inequalities. According to “The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,” this created a sense of order towards the people, “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy (1) .” Going along with social inequalities, every relationship was different between wealth and social position, but alike, in terms of the same idea. Like I had said in the inner circle of the seminar, I like to create analogies for situations. In terms of the civilizations, it would be like recipes,take for example, meatloaf, not everybody makes it the same way, but it’s still meatloaf, right? Same applies to these civilizations, they have the same idea to some how segregate people who are below the rulers, and then segregrate even more amongst themselves. “Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1) .” To get by everyday, classical civilizations used religion, rules, or a way of life to get by. India used the religion Hinduism, and China used rather a way of life. Confucianism created this equality between everybody, including the peasants. “Confucianism urged deference but offered praise for peasant work (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1) .” On the hand, the Persian empire created a mash of religion and a way of life. “Zoroastrianism emphasized the importance of personal moral choice in picking one side or the other ( Stearns,84).” This meant that is was all within, and when it came to the everyday life, you were in charge with the decisions that you made.
ReplyDeleteClassical civilizations had the need to use radical social inequalities, to keep the classes distinctly separated, and power correctly distributed. “ Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work”(The Classical Mediterranean, 1). “Groups at the top of the Social hierarchy judged that they had to control the lower groups carefully to to ensure their own prosperity”(The Classical Mediterranean, 1). Wealth, and social class in China allowed a few lower class people to rise on the basis of education,”China’s bureaucratic system allowed a very small number of talented people from below on the basis of education,”(The Classical Mediterranean, 1). In India they was very little movement between class’. “ India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired, but little overall mobility,”(The Classical Mediterranean, 1). The mediterranean allowed very little social mobility, but it emphasized the importance of wealth. “ Mediterranean society, with it’s aristocratic emphasis, limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of acquired wealth gave some non aristocrats important economic, and political opportunities”, (The Classical Mediterranean, 1). India used religion to compensate for social inequalities. China used a value system,” Generated value systems that might convince lower classes and the upper ranks that there was some legitimacy about the social hierarchy”,(The Classical Mediterranean, 1). The Mediterranean compensated social inequalities by emphasising aristocracy, but giving others opportunities in economic, and political roles.
ReplyDelete“Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy,with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual an menial work”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). Classical civilizations used their differences to determine social rank. For example upper classes felt should be able to control the lower classes. “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity. Each classical society generated ideologies that explained and justified the great social division”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective:1). From my understanding, I believe wealth had some effect on social position in each classical civilization. Although people were born into their social classes, there were small opportunities to move up, “Opportunities for mobility varied also. India’s caste system allowed movement within castes, if wealth was acquired…...Mediterranean society..limited opportunities to rise to the top, but the importance of acquired wealth ..gave some nonaristocrats important economic and political opportunities”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective:2)”. To compensate for social inequalities China used confucianism and tried to create some agreement over social rank, ”Chinese confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement...on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective:3).Rome thought aristocracy was the way of doing things, but it did not work well for everyone. “This combination could work well, although some groups, including slaves and women, were always excluded…... It tended to deteriorate, however, when poorer citizens lost property..” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective:3)”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of your answers in your paragraph, however I do not think that the evidence form the text in your first answer fully supported your claim. I think that if you used "This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tension between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy," (2). This would have been more supportive because it shows that social class was determined by economic resources. Besides that I think that you did a very good job on answering the questions. You answers are clear and you also did well on the structure.
DeleteNow that you mentioned that quote i do believe that it would have been a more supportive detail to my claim because it would have better explained why the upper class believed they should control the lower classes. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
DeleteThe people of classic civilizations needed such radical social inequalities due to the circumstances they were under, such as agricultural and economic resources, and the lifestyle in which the people lived. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 1).” Rulers at the time needed people to do all of the work in order to keep the government running steady. That soon lead to categorizing the people of classical civilizations. groups of people at the top of their social hierarchy were based on different value systems, such as priests, bureaucrats, and aristocrats. “Groups at the top of the social pyramid reflected different value systems. The priests in India, the bureaucrats in China, and the aristocrats in Greece and the Roman republic pre-dominated,” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective 3). India used Hinduism to compensate for social inequalities, “India’s Hinduism helped justify and sustain the hierarchy by promising rewards through reincarnation for those who submitted to their place in any given existence,” (The Classical MEditerranean in Comparative Perspective, 6). The Chinese culture used Confucianism to make up for social inequalities, “Chinese confucianism urged general culture values of obedience and self-restraint, creating come agreement-- despite varied religions and philosophies--on the legitimacy of the social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave,” (THe Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 6). Although China and India settled on a religion pretty quickly, Greece and Rome took a little while longer. At first they attempted to emphasize the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in the political system. However, women and slaves were always excluded, so no religion swept across the majority of the nation until Christianity was created, “Yet no sweeping new social theory emerged to offer a different kind o solace to the masses until Christianity began to spread.
ReplyDeletei agree with your response. You did a good in answering all the questions and using evidence from the text to support your answer. Your quotes were very descriptive and i had no trouble understanding your point of view. I think you did a great job.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll classical civilizations had radical social inequalities, but what was the reason for the substantial imbalance of power/status? The document has a few good answers to this question such as, ¨civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy.¨ and ¨Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity.”(The Classical Mediterranean Perspective, 1). Basically, that is saying that all civilizations all have the common struggles of the greediness of the upper class. The upper class/ ruling class is determined to stay rich and powerful so they enforce extreme ruling and intense strain on the lower classes. This ties into the relationship of wealth to status such that, acquisition of wealth and the possession of it, is nearly always the determining factor of your social class, despite what the society would have you believe. A clear example of this from the document is, “India’s caste system allowed movement within castes; if wealth was acquired…”(The Classical Mediterranean Perspective, 1). While India used religion as an excuse for social inequalities,(i.e. in Hinduism, promises of a better life through reincarnation if you kept your place) cultures like China, Greece, and Rome used different strategies. A direct quote from the document states, “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint…” (The Classic Mediterranean Perspective, 3). Although with civilizations around the Mediterranean, Greece and Rome mostly, the importance of the aristocracy was stressed over religion.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading, ‘The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,’ I felt like classical civilizations seemed to need radical social inequalities because of common tensions that allowed the amount of economic resources one had to determine their lifestyle. Also, this relates to the relationship between wealth and social position because, if you think about it, the amount of wealth and power that you had determine your social position--the more wealthy and luxurious you were, the better your social position happened to be. “This was the most rigid classical social structure because it tied people to their basic social and occupational position by birth.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2) However, I’d say that the social inequalities that each culture used were somewhat, but not entirely different from one another, considering that India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, while, the Chinese used Confucianism to define how gentlemen and commoners should behave. Though, Greece and Rome were very different from the Chinese and Indian government, as instead of religion, they used local authorities and community bonds for a sense of common purpose.
ReplyDeleteYour word choice and structure we great. It seemed like you really understood the topic. However, I felt like you should have added more than one citation so people could understand where you're getting more of your information from. Other than that, I like where you said, "...if you think about it, the amount of wealth and power that you had determined your social position..." I had the same idea with that. If they were higher in wealth and born into an upper class family, then they had everything easy-going for them. If they weren't, then they had the trouble of doing a lot of labor and struggling with the position they were in. Overall, nice job with your paragraph!
DeleteClassical Civilizations seemed to need radical social inequalities to help them tell the upper class from the lower class. This was to tell everyone where they belonged and what they could and couldn’t do. Normally, if one group had more wealth than the other, then they would be the higher class compared to one that doesn’t have much wealth. “Groups at the top of the social hierarchy judged that they had to control lower groups carefully to ensure their own prosperity.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 2) But wealth is not just a factor in a classical civilization. Depending on what your position is in the civilization you are in, could also put you up in the higher classes, even if you don’t have much wealth. “Each classical civilization distinctively defined the position of the lowest orders…” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 4) China and the Mediterranean used Confucianism for a religious compensate. “Confucianism urged deference but offered praise for peasant work.” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 5)
ReplyDeleteChina did use Confucianism as a compensation to social inequalities. However, Mediterranean did not. The Mediterranean refers to The Greeks and Roman whose beliefs and ideas had nothing to do with those of the Chinese. I really the way you started your essay, but I feel that it would of been more effective if you had included that civilizations now are based completely on social and economic mobility while classical civilizations had little to no mobility. I feel that the essay would of made it a better academic argument rather than you just stating your opinion.Because the evidence was very clearly and had more many to it to me.
ReplyDeleteClassical civilizations seemed to need radical racial inequalities because of the way their civilizations were set up. “This vital similarity between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and lifestyles and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,1). Position determined wealth and the economic resources every person had, this set up the social hierarchy. “Finally, each classical civilizations developed a different cultural glue to help hold its social hierarchy together” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). In India religion also compensated for social inequalities, and in China and the Mediterranean cultures used Confucianism with cultural values of obedience and self-restraint. “Chinese Confucianism urged general cultural values of obedience and self-restraint...”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,3). Mediterranean cultures used local rulers. “Greece and Rome left much of the task of managing the social hierarchy to local authorities; community bonds, as in city-states, were meant to pull different groups into a sense of common purpose”(The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective,3).
ReplyDeleteAll classical civilizations shared one common need for social system or organization. This was used or needed to keep rule to hierarchy. This important common way “between the civilizations reflected common tensions between complex leadership demands and the lifestyle and the limited economic resources of the agricultural economy” (The classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective). To what they are mentioning is that they need distinctive social inequalities so that they can benefit the economy and so that their rule can function correctly. ¨Tension between tyrants and aristocrats or democrats and aristocrats in Athens often revolved around free farmers’ attempts to preserve their independence and shake off the heavy debts they had incurred.¨ (Stearns, 96). There was always violent confrontations from the upper class and the lower class but without the social inequalities the society couldn’t function.
ReplyDelete“Each classical civilization emphasized a clear social hierarchy, with substantial distance between elites and the majority of people who did the manual and menial work” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective) Vital similarities between civilizations affected and created tensions in complex leadership demands and agricultural economy. To ensure their own prosperity, groups at the top of the social hierarchy controlled lower groups. The ones who dominated were aristocrats in Greece and Roman Republic, priests in India, and bureaucrats in China. “However, there was a constant tendency , most pronounced in Rome, for large landlords to squeeze these farmers, forcing them to become tenants or laborers or to join the swelling crowds of the urban lower class” (Stearns, 95). What the text is saying is that large landlords would force farmers to become tenants or laborers or to join crowds of the lower class.
While India used religion to compensate for social inequalities, the Chinese Confucianism value obedience and self-restraint to create some agreement through varied religions and philosophies. “Chinese Confucianism urged general culturals values of obedience and self-restraint, creating some agreement---despite varied religions and philosophies---on the legitimacy of social ranks by defining how gentlemen and commoners should behave” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3). While the Mediterranean cultures used a more difficult attempt, they tried to emphasize the importance of aristocracy and offer elements a share in a political system. “Greece and Rome attempted a more difficult task in emphasizing the importance of aristocracy while offering some other elements a share in political system” (The Classical Mediterranean in Comparative Perspective, 3).