Strayer 5, Eurasian Social Structure

10/9/2016

You guys are getting better at this Strayer game already! Let's tap in to your inner yin and yang, or your inner desire to declare for freedom, with another great effort for a superior forum.

103 Comments

Bingham

10/9/2016 23:37:33

Why was slavery so much more prominent in Greco-Roman civilization than in India or China?

There were far more slaves in the Greco-Roman world.
Slaves played a critical role in the economy of the Greco-Roman civilization.
Slaves participated in a more diverse array of occupations in the Roman Empire than they did in other classical civilizations—from among the highest and most prestigious positions to the lowest and most degraded ones.

student

14/9/2016 18:26:39

Why weren't there more slaves in India and China? Why couldn't slaves play a critical role in economy of the Indian and Chinese civilizations? Why didn't slaves participate in a more diverse array of occupations in India and China?

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 21:02:01

Relating to what this nameless individual above has commented, I read your listed characteristics of Greco-Roman slavery as just that, unique characteristics. Wouldn't those be descriptors of how G-R slavery was unique to other second-wave civs (MQ6) rather than why slavery was so important to G-R civilization? Am I just reading the question incorrectly?

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 21:14:17

I thought about the question as comparing and contrasting the unique features of each civilization, rather than just describing Roman slavery.

Roman society was economically dependent on slavery, while the caste system and class organization provided a labor source from the lower castes/classes without the need for slavery.
The caste system offered many more categories to understand inequality, which made it more difficult to broadly differentiate between Freed and Enslaved.
Chinese culture valued productivity and most likely would have looked down upon slave owners as "unproductive".
Roman slaves participated in a more diverse array of occupations in Roman society, from among the most valued to the most degraded.

Does this make sense? Am I overthinking it?

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 21:29:48

I think you've got the right idea. My arguement is that slavery=coercion of labor, and no one in China or India really needed to be coerced into doing a particular job because caste/class assigned it for them. (of course I would elaborate a little more)

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 21:39:25

You could also question what is defined as coerced labor. If members of the case system did not perform their caste duties, they were threatened with social ostracism and perhaps consequences in their next life. The unavailability of social alternatives to the caste system and the harsh consequences for not fulfilling caste obligations could be a form of coercion in themselves. What do you think?

Amy Vaughan

15/9/2016 11:41:31

Yes! I completely agree and I was thinking about that earlier. It does seem like the caste system did have slavery, but that it just called it by a different name.

Bingham

10/9/2016 23:40:40

What philosophical, religious, or cultural ideas served to legitimate the class and gender inequalities of classical civilizations?

Every classical system drew on ideas to legitimate class and gender inequalities.
In China, Confucian philosophy was used to justify both the class system and patriarchy, although peasants successfully used Daoism when rebelling against established authorities.
Religious beliefs underpinned the caste system in India—the varnas (the four classes of society) were described as being formed from the body of the god Purusha; one’s current place in the caste system was explained through the concepts of karma and rebirth; and one’s future lives were determined in part by dharma or the fulfillment of one’s caste duties.
Greek rationalism underpinned key ideas about class and gender in the Mediterranean world. Aristotle developed the notion that some people were “slaves by nature” and should be enslaved for their own good and for that of the larger society. This idea helped to justify large-scale slave ownership in classical Athens, where perhaps one-third of the population were slaves, and continued to justify slave ownership in ancient Rome. Greek philosophers, including Aristotle, also provided a set of ideas that justified the exclusion of women from public life and their general subordination to men. According to Aristotle, women were infertile men who were inadequate because they could not generate sperm (which contained the “form” or “soul” of a new human being). From this understanding of women came further ideas, such as that women, like children or domesticated animals, were influenced unduly by instinct and passion and lacked the rationality to take part in public life.

Melina

11/9/2016 18:55:43

Big picture question: what is the difference between class and caste-
Mobility between classes is possible through education or job opportunities. Class is often associated with the ammount of money the individual makes. The caste system on the other hand deeply divides the Indian population but is not based on income. The caste system is also something one is born into and cannot change, It provides no opportunity for advancement.

Does anyone else have something to add?

Bri Al-Bahish

11/9/2016 21:08:46

That's a really good answer. I could be wrong, but I also think caste was a broader category and many different classes could fit into one caste. Caste remained pretty rigid, but within classes, there were specializations and a type of class hierarchy that was not as rigid. Someone please correct me if I am wrong or if there is anything I need to add.

Bri Al-Bahish

11/9/2016 21:26:27

Wait. Never mind. I think I misread the question. Ignore my previous post above.

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 19:25:44

I would add that classes represented a much broader category than caste. In the caste system, you have a specific and known place in the social order of your community (varna + jati), where as in the class system, you are a part of a class that encompasses all of your empire (all of the peasants in China)

Cindy Xia

13/9/2016 19:21:13

Would you also say that class is also associated with land? Such as how landowners in ancient China were able to exercise so much power against the authorities + peasant class based on the size of their estates? Then again, property can be associated with wealth....

Audrey Mills

15/9/2016 20:26:06

Also, though the caste system isn't based on income, income generally correlates with caste. The lower your caste, and the lower your jati within your varna, the less money you make

Bingham

11/9/2016 20:07:19

Oh, someone is actually doing what I told you guys to do, and not giving in to old, do-it-at-the-last-minute habits?

Good answer Melina.

Bri Al-Bahish

11/9/2016 21:24:13

How did India's caste system differ from China's class system? How were they similar?

Similarities:
-birth determined social status (for the most part)
-little social mobility
-social life was characterized by these inequalities and distinctions
-religious and cultural traditions defined these inequalities as natural, eternal, and ordained by the gods (example for China: Mandate of Heaven justified the rule of the emperor ; example for India: caste system was in part supported by the idea of good and bad karma)

Differences:
-religious vs political status--> India prioritized religious status and ritual while China elevated political officials to high elite positions
-India's caste system divided India into many social groups while China's groups were fewer and broader
-India's caste system defined the social groups more rigidly; less mobility than in China
-India's localization made it hard to expand their empire to other parts of the continent
-India's diversity created a place for various groups of people to fit into. In China, you had to essentially become Chinese

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 19:42:13

Seeking the Main Point: To what extent were the massive inequalities of second-wave civilizations generally accepted, and in what ways were they challenged?
Support:
-religion/tradition often supported the status quo of social life (ex: Hinduism promoted detached action, aka "stay in your lane/caste," Confucianism was founded on the ideas of inequality)
-form of government reinforced inequalities (government officials were highest class in China)

Challenges:
-introduction of foreign traditions which illuminated alternatives to social inequalities (ex: less patriarchal traditions of the nomadic invaders of China influenced Chinese patriarchy)
-peasant rebellions
-attempts at reform (such as Wang Mang's)

What am I missing? (if it helps your thought process, I tried to break down this question into the 3 main inequalities discussed this chapter: gender, slavery, caste/class)

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 20:38:22

Amy, could you say that attempts at social mobility were a form of resistance to the social rigidity of some civilizations? Such as how merchants in China and jatis in India sought to improve their social standing through buying land.

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 21:36:00

That's really interesting- I hadn't thought about it that way before. Would that be resistance though, or would it be conforming to certain behaviors or practices associated with higher status? Maybe a mix of both?

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 21:42:42

I agree that social mobility often came from conforming to practices of higher classes (almost in a "fake it 'til you make it" kind of way.) The question specifically asks to resistance against social inequality...So I guess social mobility was resisting one's position among the in the unequal social order, but not necessarily resisting the practice of social inequality itself. Does that make sense?

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 19:57:19

I'm a little confused about women fit into the caste system. The duties of certain castes were sometimes specific to only men (ex: Kshatriya and Brahmins). If a woman was born into the Kshatriya class, she wouldn't be allowed to fulfill the warrior duties of Kshatriya members. Also, she wouldn't be allowed to associate with people outside of her varna and jati, so she would have to marry another local Kshatriya.
Were Indian women's castes always determined by their relationships to males? Was there no way for women to marry into another caste? If women couldn't participate in the assigned duties of their class, what did they do instead?

Arielle Ollagnon

12/9/2016 21:32:03

I was also kind of confused, I guess I just assumed that women's castes were in connection by their relationships to males and that they were just kind of giving birth all the time and taking care of their children while the men did their assigned duties? Not sure though...

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 21:53:50

Adding on to that, if you look carefully, Strayer mentions in passing that (in India, at least) rich women stayed at home, while poor women worked outside the home if they absolutely had to.

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 23:05:39

We should make a practice margin question with this- "How did the roles of women differ throughout the second wave civilizations?"

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 20:02:21

MQ1: Description: How would you characterize the social hierarchy of China during the second-wave era?
-men > women
-gov't officials > landlords > peasants > merchants
-free people > slaves (although there weren't many)

Okay, this is really short. Am I missing something?

Matilda Smolij

12/9/2016 21:23:19

Should you include Priests before government officials? (Priests> gov't officials> landlords> peasants > merchants)

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 21:31:53

I don't think so. I would definitely include priests as the top tier in India's social hierarchy, which was more based on religion (Hinduism). China was more politically centered, though, so their elite was comprised of government officials.

matilda smolij

12/9/2016 21:53:59

ah yes so sorry just noticed that it said China:/

Yasmeen Gaber

12/9/2016 21:24:36

That's definitely how it worked, but I think it might also be worth noting the distinctions between the class connotations of the peasants and the merchants, because they both had generally not-so-great lives, but the peasants still had an element of status and respect in the society because they basically ran they economy. The default dependency of peasants on landlords might also be noteworthy. Other than specific descriptions like that, you definitely have a clear, succinct answer (which has definitely helped me to piece it all together).

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 21:36:26

Gotcha. So the Chinese valued productivity, therefore they valued peasants (producers of food), over merchants (sold products made by others). Also, side note: despite its unpopular connotations to brutality, legalism seems to still be influencing the Chinese mindset.

Bingham

13/9/2016 06:52:07

This seems to be a workable shorthand in answer to that question, but my approach would be to start with a more thorough "characterization."

At the top of the social hierarchy in China were the emperor’s officials, who represented the cultural and social elite.
Officials were in large part drawn from wealthy landowning families. Despite the efforts of Chinese emperors, landowners remained a central feature of Chinese society, especially since many members of this group also served the emperor as his officials.
Peasants made up the largest part of the Chinese population. By the first century B.C.E., population growth, taxation, and indebtedness had resulted in many peasants becoming tenant farmers rather than farmers who owned their own land. There was significant differentiation between peasant families; some worked or owned enough land to feed themselves and perhaps sell something at the local market, while others could barely survive.
The elite in Chinese society possessed a largely negative view of merchants, who were viewed as unproductive people who made a shameful profit by selling the work of others. The authorities made periodic efforts to rein in merchant activity, but despite active discrimination, merchants frequently became quite wealthy, and some tried to achieve respectable elite status by purchasing landed estates and educating their sons to become civil servants.

Cindy Xia

12/9/2016 20:08:05

MQ#7: In what ways did the expression of Chinese patriarchy change over time, and why did it change?

1) long established patterns of thinking in terms of pairs and opposites now described in gendered and unequal terms (ex: yang is masculine, yin is feminine + inferior)
2) Confucian texts repeated this idea, such as the adage "men go out, women stay in" which contrasted the public life of men vs the domestic life of women
3) the “three obediences” emphasized a woman’s subordination to her father, her husband, then her son
4) the collapse of the Han dynasty had Confucianism discredited; Buddhism and Daoism attracted a growing following, and nomadic people invading --> the number of small states replacing Han government led to loosening of strict Han dynasty patriarchy
5) by Tang China, elite women were depicted as able to handle activities on their own (legal + business, horse riding, etc)
6) Tang legal codes recognized a married daughter’s right to inherit property from her family at birth
7) in the Tang dynasty, Empress Wu’s actions seemed deliberately designed to elevate the position of women (mourning period of mothers = to that of fathers; new character of “human being” suggested birth from a woman w/o prominent male role)
8) growing popularity of Daoism provided new images of feminine roles for women; the “dao” was referred to as the “mother”; urged for traditionally feminine virtues of yielding + passive acceptance instead of male-oriented striving of Confucianism
9) Daoist sects featured women as priests, nuns; a number of women found Buddhist monasteries as an alternate to family life
10) a variety of female deities from Daoist and Buddhist traditions found a place in Chinese village religion

Is this too much? Too little? Is there more wrong than right? I'm not sure, someone please correct me, thank you.

Amy Vaughan

12/9/2016 20:23:35

Wow this is a great break down of that section. If it helps you think in terms of change, you might even group some of these together (1-3 representing strict traditional Confucian views on women and their place in the home, 4 being a transition period into the less strict patriarchy through the influence of nomadic traditions, and 5-10 telling of the greater independence and given to women in the Tang dynasty.)

Cindy Xia

13/9/2016 07:50:04

Oh, that's a great idea. Thanks Amy.

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 20:58:52

Rarely, women could sometimes exercise political power through a relationship (wife, concubine) of the emperor or by leading a peasant rebellion. This increased anti-female hostility among the elite officials.

Could you say this was a way that patriarchy changed?

Jeylan Jones

12/9/2016 21:36:13

how did the inequalities of slavery differ from those of the caste system?

so far, I have
1. Jatis provided support and security for all castes, but slavery had no such system
2. slaves could be emancipated throughout their lifetime, and in some societies, children of slaves were free, but a person was always stuck in a caste they were born in
3. slaves were seen as barbarians, and certain groups, such as Asiatic Greeks, Syrians, and Jews were thought of as slaves by nature
4. there was no criticism of slavery in principle
5. there was no distinction between jobs for slaves and for free people, but the caste system had clearly-defined jatis

Am I missing anything? Am I on the right track?

Bingham

13/9/2016 06:57:13

Pretty good Jeylan, I would just add:
In some traditions, slaves could transform their status by being freed by their master or by purchasing their freedom. Also in some traditions, children of slaves were considered free at birth. These traditions offered more opportunities for social mobility than did the caste system.

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 20:09:16

I think your comment about the lack of moral criticism of slavery is very interesting, but how does this differentiate slavery from the caste system? Was there criticism of the caste system? I remember Strayer mentioning that Indian religious writings often supported ritual purity and pollution and other social inequalities, which implies advocacy instead of criticism. So does your statement become a similarity rather than a difference? What do you think?

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 20:12:25

I would also add that slaves could be bought and sold and worked without pay, unlike the caste system.

If we are starting to look at similarities, I noticed that both slavery and the caste system were supported by religious teachings (Christianity and Hinduism, respectively). I bet this would make a big difference, especially for religions that had such widespread gravitas.

Amy Vaughan

13/9/2016 20:38:43

I was thinking of adding some similarities as well! Here are a few others I've come up with:
-both created an "out" and an "in" (in the caste system, twiceborns vs Sudra and untouchables; in slavery, owners vs slaves)
-both systems assigned identity to its participants (duties, behaviors, status)

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 21:05:48

Well, you could also say that they differed in the extent to which they assigned identity. The caste system allowed its participants much more cultural and social identity by assigning them a secure and distinct place in society. In contrast, the slaves did not have any identity other than being slaves. (I guess it's all relative. I can see how this tiny identity could count as a similarity to the caste system, but I thought about it in a different way.)

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 21:08:43

Combining what Jeylan and Amy said, I observe that though there was exclusion to both the slaves and the untouchables, slaves could still work alongside freed men while the untouchables were just that--spiritually and physically untouchable. (see ritual purity and pollution)

Amy Vaughan

13/9/2016 20:34:27

I might add that even though some societies instituted protective laws for slaves (owners had to provide them with minimal support), their lives were still much more chaotic and dangerous than those in the caste system, because they had less control (they were owned by masters and could be sold at any time).

melina bezanis

13/9/2016 16:42:50

In what ways were India's social organization similar to China's?

1. Birth determined social status for most people
2. little social mobility was available
3. sharp distinctions and great inequalities characterized social life
4. religious or cultural traditions defined the inequalities as natural or ordained by the gods

Melina Bezanis

13/9/2016 16:57:31

Reasons Chinese and Indian civilizations were different:

1. India prioritized religious status and ritual purity
2. Indian society had the caste system which segregated society into distinct social groups, china had broader categories
3. India's caste society was much more rigid and offered less opportunity for social movement

Marisa W

14/9/2016 21:27:00

Another difference is that china society was based around the state, where as the society of India was more centered around the varnas.

Melina Bezanis

13/9/2016 16:53:42

5 reasons why Wang Mang's reforms were unsuccessful:

-opposition from wealthy land owners
-nomadic invasions
-floods
-famines

What 4 things contributed to the growth of slavery:

-war ( generated numerous prisoners, capture meant ensalvement)
-patriarchy (in patriarchal societies men sharply controlled women and basically owned them)
-notion of private property (the class of inequalities was based on owning private property which made it easy for people to imagine owning other people)
-the early domestication of animals (thought to have provided a model for enslaving people)

Melina Bezanis

13/9/2016 16:59:32

sorry i also forgot to add

-poor harvests

Bingham

14/9/2016 06:27:56

Cause and effect here; the poor harvests were a result of floods and led to famine. All of these should be part of your answer Melina, but demonstrate you see the causative relationships.

Cindy Xia

13/9/2016 18:51:37

MQ#2: What class conflicts disrupted Chinese society?
1) state authorities vs. landowners: landlords able to accumulate land in sizable estates were opposed by the state authorities b/c of avoidance on paying taxes + decreasing state revenue; landowners could also mount their own military against the authorities
2) landowners vs. peasants: state authorities required payment of taxes + demanded a month’s labor on various projects; during the Han dynasty, impoverished farmers had to sell out to large landowners and work as tenants/sharecroppers; rents could run up to 1/2 to 2/3 of the crop
3) peasant rebellions periodically arose in Chinese society; the Yellow Turban Rebellion found leaders, organization, + a unifying ideology in a popular form of Daoism; although defeated by military forces, the YTB + other rebellions devastated the economy, weakened the state, + contributed to the overthrow of the dynasty
4) merchants vs. general society; esp state authorities: seen as shameful (b/c sold other’s products), greedy, and a social threat; state authorities placed bans on profitable trade items, clothing, and forced merchants to loan large sums of $$ to the state; despite active discrimination, some merchants became wealthy and had backdoor relations to landlords + officials

Suggestions/help are welcome!

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 19:46:29

What is the difference between the varna and jati expressions of caste?

The varna system emerged first, with four categories (Brahim, Kshatriyas, Vaisya, and Sudras) based primarily on race (Aryan "twice-born" versus natives). The "untouchables" class emerged outside of the varna system and were practically social outcasts. The jati system consisted of greater specialized categories based on your occupation that blended with the varna as subcastes. Jatis were part of a local hierarchy with strong social rules, duties, and consequences.

This doesn't seem too concise, but I wanted to hit the main points of difference (categorization, origin, untouchables, social). Is there anything I should add or leave out?

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 19:54:12

Looking at my answer, I want to confirm that my comment about the varna system being based on race continued to be accurate even as the Indian civilization expanded and absorbed different cultures. I know it originated with the first three varnas being Aryan and the Sudras natives incorporated as servants. So if I change the sentence to read "originally" instead of "primarily" is that more accurate?

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 20:01:43

You kind of touched on this when you said that the jatis were part of local hierarchies, but I think you could add that the varna system was considered universal and immutable. By comparison, the practice of jati was more fluid, as it varied from region to region.

Yasmeen Gaber

13/9/2016 20:20:22

I was having a little trouble with this. The jatis seemed like a more in-depth categorization of people in the caste system, which was more open to jati mobility, whereas jatis were grouped into varnas, which could not and did not move themselves because they were seen as parts of the god Purusha. Does that make sense/is that accurate?

Sofia Puccio

13/9/2016 20:28:08

I would definitely say "originally" instead of "primarily."
While there was an ideal of the three pure Aryan castes at first, the system in practice was quite different, with native peoples being incorporated into the higher castes (tribal medicine men became sorcerers in the Brahmin caste) as Indian civilization spread throughout South Asia.

Amy Vaughan

13/9/2016 20:53:52

If anyone is having trouble with varna vs jati, what I did was draw a big circle representing all South Asians of the time. Within that circle, I drew four big circles- one for each varna (I view varna as similar to the Chinese classes, overencompassing all people). Within the varna circles, I drew smaller circles representing jati. I think of jati as organization through small, local guilds of people sharing a particular varna.

Yasmeen Gaber

13/9/2016 21:18:56

Thanks, Amy! That really puts it into perspective. What did you put for the example jatis? Would it just be artisans, merchants, farmers, etc?

Bingham

14/9/2016 09:08:46

You guys are so good at this! I think Eliza's answer works. Here was my approach:
The varna system was older. It provided broad categories in a social hierarchy that explained social inequality.
The jatis were occupationally based groups that split the varnas and the untouchables into thousands of smaller social groupings based on occupation. Jatis became the primary cells of social life in India beyond the family or household. Each jati was associated with one of the great classes or with the untouchables. Marriage and eating together were permitted only within one’s own jati, and each jati was associated with its own particular set of duties, rules, and obligations, which defined its members’ unique and separate place in the larger society.

Taylor Scott

14/9/2016 23:04:04

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that 2 statements under #2 (state authorities required payment of taxes and demanded a month's labor on various projects) would relate closer as causes to number 3, peasant rebellions. The state also conscripting young men could also be a cause that led to peasant rebellions.

What do you think?

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 19:39:52

MQ: What class conflicts disrupted Chinese society?

Landowners vs. State Authorities:
--Authorities (unsuccessfully) tried to limit landowners' accumulation of estates
--Landowners' evaded paying taxes, which increased burden on peasants and decreased revenue of the state
--Some landowners challenged authority of the emperor with militant force

Peasants vs State Authorities and Landowners:
--Landowners' extraction of high rents from peasants working on the land and high payments to state and devotion of month's labor-->Peasant rebellions (Yellow Turban Rebellion as a central example of conflict)

Culturally Elite vs. Merchants:
--Elite viewed merchants as unproductive, making shameful profit, and a social threat-->authorities attempted to control merchant activity

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 19:49:41

MQ: How did the patriarchies of Athens and Sparta differ from each other?

--Women's clothing was more modest in Athens than in Sparta; Spartan women's clothing was intended to provide more mobility-->
--Women were encouraged to engage in sports and physical activity in Sparta (to strengthen bodies for reproduction), whereas in Athens this was discouraged
--Spartans highly valued women's reproductive abilities (they essentially provided the army), whereas women in Athens were viewed as infertile versions of men
--Women in Athens were usually not educated, while Spartan women were
--Women in Athens usually married men much older than them (strengthening the unequal relationship between the two), whereas Spartan women generally married men the same age as them
--Spartan women exercised more authority in the household, as men were often away at war
--Women in Sparta could own property; women in Athens could not
--In Athens, women were usually segregated from male space, even within the home. This was not the case in Sparta
--Even though Athens was the primary birthplace of democracy, women generally had less freedom in Athens than Sparta

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 20:12:16

Question I came up with: What accounted for the the spectrum of wealth within the peasant class in China?

The central reason general success within the peasant class was so varied was its great number of vulnerabilities. Peasants were subject to:
--Nature (famines, floods, droughts, hail, and pests), which determined success of crops
--The state (they had required taxes, owed about a month's worth of labor every year, and young men could be conscripted for military service)
--Landlords (When impoverished peasants had to sell out to landlord's during the Han dynasty, they then often had to work as tenants or sharecroppers on the estate. Rent could run as high as one half to two thirds of the crops)

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 20:22:30

Another question I came up with: How did the caste-based social structure shape India's emerging civilization?

--General localization of loyalties (as opposed to mostly experiencing an all-encompassing empire)--> A combination of caste and Hinduism essentially provided a substitute for a state as a mechanism of integration in Indian society

--This method of integration provided a means of accommodating migrating or invading peoples (allowed varying peoples, traditions, and cultures to find a place within the greater Indian civilization, while still maintaining a semblance of their unique identity)

--To an extent, it generated some social security and support (even the lowest ranking jatis maintained a theoretical right to certain payments from the social superiors they served)

--On the other hand, it also facilitated some exploitation of the poor by the wealthy and powerful, due to the inequalities being so recognized and valued

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 20:27:51

How did war, patriarchy, and the notion of private property contribute to the growth of slavery?

--Large-scale warfare generated numerous prisoners (records suggest women captives became the first slaves)
--The rise of patriarchal societies in which men intensely controlled or "owned" women may have suggested the possibility of using other people as slaves
--Class inequalities, which were based on vast differences in privately owned property also contributed to the suggestion of people owning other people

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 20:36:21

In what ways were women active agents in the histories of societies, and what accounts for the persistence of women's subordination despite their historical contributions?

Female Contributions:
--Women were transmitters of peoples culture: being central figures in family life, they served as repositories for domestic culture
--Some historical female figures were able to occupy unorthodox and occasionally prominent positions outside the home
--Both Buddhist and Christian nuns shaped small domains of relative freedom for women within restrictive societies

The main reason for women's continuing subordination despite this was that all of these contributions still occurred under a patriarchal framework. As opposed to evolving outside of patriarchal circumstances, all of these contributions were the result of resistance against defined gender roles or expectations, and so they occurred and existed in relation (and despite) the patriarchal structure. Resistance is not the same thing as superseding or escaping from the patriarchy.

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 20:44:21

How did Greco-Roman slavery differ from that of other classical civilizations?

- society and economy was based on slavery
- even poor households usually owned two or three domestic servants
- freeing slaves in old age was forbidden in India, but common in Greco-Roman slavery
- no legal protection for slaves
- slaves worked for no pay
- slaves could be bought and sold
- widespread --> emergence of slave trade --> diversity among slaves
- harsher consequences for a slave under the law
- Greco-Roman slavery supported by religious teachings

Amy Vaughan

13/9/2016 21:13:36

Okay, so this is a really tricky comparison because there is so much variation within the category of slavery that it's hard to generalize. Also, there isn't much info given about slavery in other societies. So, how do we know if something listed as characteristic of Roman slavery is unique to it? For example, in your two points, "slaves worked for no pay" and "slaves could be bought and sold," do you think that these features are exclusive to Rome's system of slavery or do you think they apply to slavery in general? This is something I've been struggling with, so I would love to hear your interpretation.

Yasmeen Gaber

13/9/2016 21:32:20

I definitely think that "slaves worked for no pay" and "could be bought and sold" weren't unique to Greco-Roman society because they're mostly the definition of a slave (if you own property, you won't pay it to keep it, and if you can own a person, you can buy and sell them) but it probably worked slightly differently in the East. Also, it is worth noting that slaves didn't occupy a specific class in Greece and Rome, doing everything from teaching and practicing medicine to working in brothels. They also often worked alongside free people. However, the set-up of the question is kind of annoying because there's kind of a Venn diagram of Greece vs. Rome within the Venn diagram of Greco-Roman Civilizations vs. China/India/Persia, and with that kind of a set-up, you have to zoom out a lot and really look at the structure of the system of slavery and how it was approached in society rather than the actuality of how it worked.

Eliza Pillsbury

13/9/2016 21:34:47

Ahh, I see. I misread the question. I was reading it as contrasting slavery to other forms of social organization in classical civilizations. I will revisit this question and get back to you, Amy, because you bring up a good point.

Amy Vaughan

13/9/2016 21:23:57

Also, Aristotle came up with the idea of "slaves by nature"- that some people were meant to be enslaved for their own good.

Yasmeen Gaber

13/9/2016 21:34:55

Bouncing off of that, didn't they believe that slaves were akin to animals ("an ox is a poor man's slave", or something to that effect? I remember reading that but I'm not sure if I'm just super tired or I actually did read that.

elizapills@aol.com

13/9/2016 21:37:17

Expanding on the last margin question, has anyone found any similarities between Athenian and Spartan patriarchies? (I am going to look closer tomorrow when I don't feel as brain dead, but none are coming to mine upon my initial read.)

Cassie Barham

13/9/2016 21:49:59

I'm in the same situation as you, as far as being brain-dead goes. However, off the top of my head, I would say that women in both Athens and Sparta lacked any formal public roles (politically or otherwise).

Amy Vaughan

13/9/2016 22:23:41

The only one I came up with was that women's main role was to provide sons for their respective societies.

Sofia Puccio

13/9/2016 22:19:29

This isn't an official question or anything, just something I was thinking about.
I was struggling with the concept of the different expressions of caste (varna, jati), and what really helped me was thinking of the caste hierarchy as a "honeycomb" structure instead of a typical pyramid shape. Each part of the honeycomb represents a specific jati, which in turn can belong to a larger section (varna), and the beehive as a whole is the caste system. I think Strayer mentions this very briefly somewhere in the chapter, but it really helped me wrap my head around the caste system! I don't know if this helped anyone else, but I hope it did

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 16:29:47

FUN FACT! Amy, Owen, and I made the connection that the Mulan movie most likely took place during the formation of the Tang Dynasty. This reflects the loosening patriarchy in China, if this helps you remember!

"Let's get down to business, to defeat Strayer!"

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 21:17:30

Were all landowners members of the "scholar gentry?" Strayer writes that "they (landowners) benefited both from the wealth that their estates generated and from the power and prestige that accompanied their education and their membership in the official elite." He goes on to mention the scholar gentry class. So were only the most successful of the landowners a part of the scholar gentry class? Was this like a little mini class? I'm very confused.

Mad Chase

14/9/2016 21:29:37

I don't know if this will help anyone but it really helped me organize my thoughts for MQ7

https://gm1.ggpht.com/umlLOkkn_TY-nN1jcMyT9R8UQaKq7ftExY7OVl_5ubOAYDBCQvjJuOeFb9s6cvShr9N5xtgmDQbo8PfgpWmLFH2l4IXgGILCQb-0P3zz9VYu1mp1GvrD5MFJIOdiA5JJosx9p6JlRxEaF--_KUXoTh1M7p3Ap8HmBpLQz9b57vv58eNuHJxFVq3nKjD_UhqhQdxinCHKxXxSmUWGXnEjlpBAA4-BCEWwJvHRhTvXRfYpdigBPRUGH85FCbpbEp16lEgzxEUe8cTrDb7XaveJuiVigpAe4ak3V3YluPintUf0XGtxk0yq6GnBC3m8Ji9cvnYRHQJqiqF_ei9DTd0TFdBd3kZyAl0lgARQP4vFPNANuPs4mtYkDUY_dtZTvHI-hBOo7h1PDGTQbta0O28-ZF-BAfoH9rUBn4FrrD7RZCOohTvzHFgWhoBbeJNK9GpL6GnqlQ6OlVTHQHZ8hNddZExw0Ll4_PGXmsUlf9BO48dUV6fVuxeIs3yIt1IPrWjO2yNri96RWpNZTrlIvQVPDVQzQVfSLPLUR1SLcdfhiRh1Rvmy03UA8HRQceWCGv52LmQEyu_HxsiJrIoRgBb06vKIX9PMN39LerVzmZUJx7xCp_qnv8lt8ONobjgcmGkj6vVx8wXpU7PKkqBf_jnD5BWZjBD-bFMn47I-hMO48yV7dV77hzmakB4HNQ-6AhQhIzunnUu_BgtoqMJHvg=w1366-h643-l75-ft

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 21:35:49

Oh no! The link isn't working for me! Is there another way to view your organization? I had some trouble with this question, so I am curious how you answered it

Mad Chase

14/9/2016 21:51:19

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Im8CXp-KK6XQxwd9PZgLRgPpvcGCZ_uCwRhzDEa4ibM/edit?usp=sharing

Try this! Sorry it didn't work the first time!

Mad Chase

14/9/2016 21:58:39

I obviously don't know if this is explicitly right so other ideas are welcome. Saying that I believe that putting the ideas of patriarchy on a spectrum in relation to the China timeline is really visually helpful. I would also like to note that the spectrum fluctuates it is not strictly dark to light but light to dark to light to lighter.

Mad Chase

14/9/2016 22:04:43

To break China's patriachal system into phases these would be my groups:
I would definitely start with a kind of baseline Han China without a strict ideology, then go to Confucianism, Pastoral conquering in north china after the fall of the Han dynasty, and finish with Tang dynasty

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 21:58:32

I'm confused as to how to interpret BPQ4: What changes in the patterns of social life in second-wave civilizations can you identify? What accounts for these changes?

Are you reading this as changes in patterns within second-wave civilizations (ex: transformation of patriarchy in China)
OR
Are you reading it as changes/differences between social life in second-wave civs in comparison to previous civs?

Eliza Pillsbury

14/9/2016 22:01:16

This question is confusing me, too.

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 22:17:22

Honestly, I didn't identify any completely new concepts of inequality in the second wave civilizations. It seems to me that they took what inequality they already had (slavery, patriarchy, differences in wealth) and intensified them. Could this work as an answer, or does the answer have to be in support of changes in social patterns?

Amy Vaughan

14/9/2016 22:26:52

This is if you interpret the question as in relation to other previous civilizations.

Bingham

15/9/2016 06:42:22

BPQ4 is confusing because it implies that there were changes, but really, the answer is, "not much!" That's why you are struggling with it. This is classic AP stuff, you've been trained your whole life by questions that have clear answers, but college board (and people like Strayer) will test your understanding by asking a misdirecting question. It required a high degree of confidence. I'd simply say:
The classical era brought no dramatic changes in the social structures of societies. Rather, it brought further strengthening of cultural traditions and institutions that reinforced social inequality and patriarchy.
Strong states like China or Rome served to strengthen social inequality and patriarchy.
Also underpinning these changes were the development of classical belief systems, including the caste system in India, Confucian and Legalist philosophies in China, and Greek rationalism in the Mediterranean region.

Taylor Scott

14/9/2016 23:22:30

MQ3: What set of ideas underlies India's caste-based society

1. Birth usually determined social status
2. Little social mobility was available for the vast majority.
3.Social life was characterized by sharp distinctions and social inequalities
4. Religious or cultural traditions defined these inequalities as natural, eternal, and ordained by the gods

Is there anything else to add?

Taylor Scott

14/9/2016 23:37:40

This idea is under the heading Caste as Jati.
-the notion of ritual purity and pollution applied to caste groups

Ashi Porter

15/9/2016 00:11:43

I may be wrong but couldn't you also add the fact that the jatis and the varna system combined formed the caste system as well?

Amy Vaughan

15/9/2016 11:45:51

I would add the ideas of karma, dharma and rebirth. These, along with the threat of social ostracism, were what mainly kept people in line in the caste system.

Yasmeen Gaber

15/9/2016 18:48:13

Here is my attempt at one of the questions on the "Strayer 5 in Class" OneNote page:

Slavery was relatively unimportant in China. Why?

-an already defined peasant class left little need for slave labor
-Lack of a "conquistador" attitude made the status of slave-holding unimportant
-Moral conduct (Confucianism, etc) made owning slaves conscientiously difficult
-Valued self-productivity--using another's labor for one's own tasks would be shameful

I know I'm missing other answers, and I was a little hesitant with some of these...let me know!

Amy Vaughan

15/9/2016 19:07:29

Also under your category of valuing productivity- peasants didn't have it that bad in the hierarchy (granted, in some cases conditions were not great), and their work was valued by society. Because of this, they were willing to occupy jobs that others were normally forced into.
What do you think?

Yasmeen Gaber

15/9/2016 19:28:13

Thanks for clarifying that. I think the way that I put it was a little less to-the-point. By being "willing to occupy jobs that others were normally forced into", do you mean the types of work that the untouchables in India did, or just general farm labor?

Amy Vaughan

15/9/2016 20:30:07

Well, maybe not the work of the untouchables, but definitely the labor intensive farm work of the Vaisya and eventually Sudra. In India, farming was a little less celebrated.

Amy Vaughan

15/9/2016 19:05:08

BPQ5: Looking Back: Cultural and social patterns of civilizations seem to endure longer than the political framework of states and empires. What evidence from Chapters 3,4, and 5 might support this statement? How might you account for this phenomenon? Is there evidence that could support a contrary position?

Supporting: Even when empires fall, their cultural and social traditions continue in their surrounding regions. This can be seen in the endurance of the caste system in India in comparison to its many, fleeting empires. In Greece, Greek rationalism and democracy was revered by future regional societies, eventually spreading throughout the Western world. In China, principles of Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism, as well as the practice of Sinicization, persisted even as dynasties rose and fell. Slavery, patriarchy, and class/caste existed before major civilizations, and yet they still have a place in modern society- this cannot be said of any political framework. Perhaps the reason why political frameworks last for shorter periods of time than social patterns is due to the fact that states are associated with organization, and when there is lack of organization, it is thought to reflect fault in political organization.

Contrary: social patterns don’t stay the same, they evolve with their people (ex: evolution of patriarchy in China). These changes aren’t as visibly drastic as the fall of an empire, but they are changes nonetheless.

Any other ideas?

Bingham

15/9/2016 19:33:14

I would add that it isn't just social.patterns that last beyond empires, but cultural traditions as well. For example Christianity, ConfusIanism, rationalism, and Buddhism.

Yasmeen Gaber

15/9/2016 19:58:59

MQ: How did the patriarchies of Athens and Sparta differ from each other?

-women in Sparta were considered valuable to society albeit as breeding machines; women in Athens were strongly encouraged to stay home
-women were more independent in Sparta--while men were away fighting (very often), women ran their own households
-women in Athens were forced to dress more modestly than their Spartan counterparts; Spartan women were often physically active and their clothing reflected this
-women in Sparta married men around their age at approximately 18, while Athenian women married in their mid teens to men 10-15 years older
-Sparta's warrior culture considered women warriors of their own category (the fight being breeding--a woman who died in childbirth was viewed as a fallen soldier, which is a high honor in a warrior culture); Athenian emphasis on government, philosophy and overall intellectual mindset over a warrior culture made women inferior (women were associated with passion and emotion rather than logic in an age of rationalism)

Am I missing anything? Let me know!

Amy Vaughan

15/9/2016 20:31:15

I would argue that both women from Sparta and Athens had the primary purpose of producing sons (although perhaps to a greater degree in Sparta).

Yasmeen Gaber

15/9/2016 20:37:31

Good point! I listed it as a specific attribute of Spartan patriarchy because this was a warrior culture, and although women couldn't fight, they were as much a part of the warrior culture as the men because producing sons was equally important to the culture as the actual fighting (a much heavier degree of pressure and importance than that of Athenian women). I agree that they certainly had that in common, but the difference was in the way that they approached the reproduction of women.

Bingham

16/9/2016 08:54:41

Exactly. "Come back with your shield, or on it!"

Yasmeen Gaber

15/9/2016 20:24:46

MQ: How did the inequalities of slavery differ from that of caste?

-caste obligations had religious ramifications (varnas came from the god Purusha)
-caste could not be escaped until the next life (Greco-Roman slaves could be freed)
-caste inequalities provided a specific social structure (Greco-Roman slavery existed primarily to serve the economy)
-Greco-Roman slaves were such a large percentage of the population (33-40%) that they did not occupy a specific social class
-slavery: people were owned by other people and often could not possess property/wealth; caste inequalities did not specifically prevent people of lower castes from acquiring wealth or property

Anything I'm missing?

Amelia

4/10/2017 08:38:55

What set of ideas underlies India's caste-based society?
-It is better to do one's own duty badly, than to do someone else's well
-Karma, dharma and rebirth justified caste. Being born into a higher caste was reflective of one's actions in a past life
-There were four castes (each were represented by a part of Purusha's body). Brahmins- priests whose sacrifices secured the functioning of the world. Kshatriya- key to governing and protecting society (soldiers and rulers). Vaisya- farmers/cultivators. Sudra-laborers
-The Brahmins, Kshatriya, and Vaisya were twice born
-Idea of ritual purity and pollution (contact with an untouchable could make a Brahmin spiritually unclean)
-Selfless performance of caste duties contributed to spiritual progress
- Misbehaving for your particular caste could be reason for being expelled(pressured to adhere to duties)

Am I interpreting this question correctly?

Bingham

Welcome class of 2019. Some years students collaborate in this space effectively, some years not so much. One thing I know, collaboration significantly enhances learning. If you want access to my thoughts, this is the collaboration space to use. Most people propose an answer to margin questions, big picture question, or anything else related to managing Strayer. Other people can then comment leading to a stronger answer. I'll keep an eye on these pages, and pop in when I think you need me.

Strayer 5, Eurasian Social Structure

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories