how would a fifth century athenian criticize our present-day representative democracy?

A 5th century Athenian would disapprove of our modern representative democracy because it allows too much power to certain people and groups. In the video we watched in class, we learned how the Athenians would 'ostracize' people that they thought were threatening to their democracy because they had too much power. They also configured their Council of 500 so that no person could accumulate too much support, and one tribe could control for too long. This shows how protective they are every citizen being equal. In our democracy, we try to make sure that every person is represented fairly and we use checks and balances so that any one branch of our government cannot get too powerful. However, we do not even come close to the individuality and equality that the Athenians had in their democracy. They were so protective of this, I do not think they could approve of our highly representative democracy.

how do we see mayan values exempilfied in modern society?

The most prominent Mayan value we see portrayed in the modern Hispanic community is family unity. In Mayan times, supporting your family was important, as were family connections. Women would sell surplus food or crafts to bring in money for their family. Families employed matchmakers to pick correct spouses for their children. If you were a farmer, your son would be a farmer. Girls were trained to be housewives by their housewife mothers. This sort of family line was important. In general, we see the equivalent of these things occurring in Hispanic families: people sacrifice to support their family, marriage is important, women keep house, and professions are kept in the family.

choose two of the chinese philosophies and make a comparison and/or judgment about their effectiveness in maintaining order.

Confusianism would be the most effective at maintaining order, because it requires a certain kind of relationship between leader and his followers. A leader must live up to his position: "Lead the people and work hard for them." "A great king enriches the people." If the leader is a good leader, the people will like and respect him as a leader and not want a change. This holds with the Confusuis principle of the relationship between a ruler and a subject: if the ruler maintains his responcibilities to his subjects, they have a responcibility to follow him. "If a prince treats his subjects as his hands and feet, they will treat him as their belly and heart."


Legalism would not be not be a good long term philosophy to maintain order in a country. "Government based on the assumption that people are essentially bad will lead the state to order and strength..." for a bit. Eventually the environment imposed by a Legalist government who does not trust its subjects would lead those people to rebellion. People do not like law, violence, and restriction of education. They hold dear art and culture, their history and faith, and their families and commmunities. "The six parasites are: rites and music, Odes and History, moral culture and virtue, filial piety and brotherly love, sincerity and faith..."

what is the most effective way for a ruler to maintain order?

The 'most effective' way for a ruler to maintain order involves running the country in a satisfactory way. This is obviously a very hard, complicated task, but it pays off when you retire and look back to see that no one has revolted against you. The biggest part of this is insuring that the economy is thriving and solid, supporting all people. You have to be sure that everyone is getting what they are due, because it is possible to have a good economy and some people who are getting the short end of the stick. If everyone is happy and busy (ie. employed) they won't want a change, or won't have time to think about it. There are many, many factors involved in maintaining a healthy economy, so it is critical to not be too proud and get the support you need to govern.
You also must give back to the community, showing you understand what everyone needs. It is important to let everyone have their voice, but give them little to complain about (Or just systematically oppress them. This may actually be the most effective way to maintain order, but I personally feel that it is wrong.) This involves reasonably giving the people what they want.

Mr. Stern, I'm sorry if this is a little goofy. I just really like my ideas.

do you agree with jared diamond's thesis?

I agree with Jared Diamond's thesis, which tries to explain all the inequalities in history up to modern globalization. It makes sense that the 'roots of inequality' are things we can't control-'geographic luck'- and that everything else is the result of that until the world begins to share. We can say that Iraq got invaded because of the oil in the ground, but we can invade because we Europeans had horses and pigs and wheat, and an environment that allowed us to cultivate these things and grow communities. The ability to feed support people because of this 'geograhic luck'-different crops, useful animals, and stable environment- meant that we could advance in ways that would allow us to conquer the world.

do the advantages of agriculture and farming outweigh the disadvantages?

I believe the ideal form of human life-style is that of the hunter-gatherer, but I also believe that humans would inevitably give in to the security of farming, possibly assisted by being smarter than the other animals. The main reason I support the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is because I beleive that is our place, where we make the most sense. As hunter-gatherers, part of the ecosystem, like animals. They had a small population, they were predators, and they didn't screw with the grand scheme of things, as any more complex form of human life does. Also, I firmly believe that farming leads to a major shift in what we eat, so that we consume much more dairy and carbs. Alas, humans always want security, and then just a little tiny bit of extra. This is was leads them, very reasonably, to consume a bunch whenever possible in a hunting-gathering situation. This, I believe, is the most inportant reason for farming- the need to accumulation of not neccesary stuff. This allows for population growth, and now you have not only changed the landscape, but added way more people. Et cetera, andthen you have global warming and lots of bad stuff.