davis.athenian democracy vs. todays representative democracy

How would an Athenian of the 5th Century BCE criticize our present-day representative democracy? (or.... how would they approve of it?)

There are many things the Athenians could say that are problematic about our representative democracy today. For the Athenians, all eligible citizens get a chance to be a part of the government and get a say first-handedly, because free male citizens rotated every two years. Not only did this make government not feel so far away to the citizens, like it would with representative democracy, but this helped limit peoples' power so they wouldn't get carried away. They also wanted more people to have a chance to have a political position at one point in their lives. The more people making decisions, the larger and more sophisticated the government could be. If just one person represents all votes, there would not be a distribution of power and one person in power could be dangerous, such as if  an untrustworthy person was to represent the ideas of the people. Another shaky thing about a representative democracy is that it is mainly based on majority rule. This could slip into a popularity contest, and majority rule could result in a bad decision as easily as a good one.

Seeing these disadvantages must make our representative democracy seem inferior to the Athenian democracy, although there are many pros that the Athenians would likely approve of in the present day democracy. Mainly, our system is more organized. It is much easier to offer a large population a more convenient way to get ideas across with a short vote rather than to interrupt  jobs constantly to rotate. Then, the few congressmen who are chosen to represent the ideas can get paid, so it becomes a full time job rather than an interruption from a job they continue to have. Not only does this interrupt the flow of the citizen's job, but it interrupts the flow of the government. Once the new council member gets used the change and catches up with the decisions, they just have to rotate again. Our modern society now lets people over 18 years of age of all genders and races  vote, rather than the Athenian democracy which only lets free men over 30 years old, whose mothers and fathers both were Athenian, vote. The men who were not free, the slaves, would manage the jobs while the men were gone. This reliance on slaves was the only way the men could leave and become a council member for the two years of their rotation, but was very unjust.

davis.mayan values in our modern society

Food plays an essential part in both the ancient Mayan society and our society today. It is also one of the main components that bridges us from our past to now. 

First of all, eating food was, and is, a key way to gather people together to develop relationships and eventually help develop a stronger society. For instance, the Mayan rulers would have banquets to discuss solutions for a better future, while a current man may ask a woman to marry her over dinner at Benihana. 

Second of all, using many of the same ingredients connects us to the flavors used back then which greatly expressed their culture. For example, corn was a primary crop, for it grew easily in the area, as did beans, cacao beans, chiles etc. We see these basic ingredients in Mexican food, such as tortilla chips, hot chocolate, and hot and spicy foods, which both cultures enjoy.

Without food as an important value, a chunk of the ancient Mayan culture would be lost, for food is one of the most important ways to reflect what was in our past.

davis.connections and judgement on legalism and mohism

Legalism and Mohism had completely different tactics of controlling a society. Legalists mostly focused on agriculture and preparing for war, so everyone had to be strong in order to strive in the community and not be dismembered for "wearying the people," as they called it in document D. The government was also extremely strong, powerful, and controlling too. The welfare of the of the government always came before the welfare of the state and that was most important. Literacy was discouraged and human nature was selfish. Any bad behavior would immediately be taken care of by having the person executed. Mohism contrasts this greatly. Mohism is based on universal love, avoiding maliciousness and the strong oppressing the week as said in document B. Unlike Legalism, Mohism encouraged education, which deepens ones thoughts, and thoughts defined you. 

I personally lean more towards Mohism. Not only do I think a compassionate government is more pleasant and will cause people to want to take more part in the decisions, but this way of control is what I'm used too. Our government in America today is more like Mohism in that we force a solid education and encourage self expression, which is simialar to the idea that thoughts define you. We may have violence still between two places but our overall goal is peace eventually, and the government doesn't put the well-being of the itself over the people.

davis.strategies for a great ruler

I personally think there has to be a balance between a really harsh leader and a compassionate leader to be productive in a society. They should have clear expectations so people know exactly what they can and cant do but the leader should listen when a person or a community has an idea. If the people are happy with the decisions, they will be more willing to help with other things like getting ideas started or not rebelling against the rules. If they do rebel, there should be harsh consequences. If there aren't any punishments, people will keep doing illegal things and not care. For example, at my old school i was late in the morning all the time and no one did anything about it. So I didn't care either. But now that i go to JCHS, I know that tardiness leads to expulsion and I really can't afford to be expelled, so i make sure not to be late. So overall, I strongly think that a balance between being kind but keeping a strong hand works best as a ruler

davis.response to Jared Diamonds thesis

I definitely agree with Jared Diamond's thesis, geographic luck played an important part in our history and development. I can infer this for many reasons. Weather is one thing. Without the right weather conditions, crops cant grow. There also has to be the right animals for farming. To create rich soil, to plow. and to create more resources like meat, wool, and milk. The Middle East was very "lucky" in this sense. Everything is like a chain reaction from there. The better the farming conditions, the more crops, meaning less workers so there could be people to work on other things like steel. Steel led to guns and other weapons, which spurred technological innovation and development. So without something as simple as the right weather, the right species of animals, or the right soil, it makes it very difficult to get to where we, as americans, are today.

davis.agriculture question

Do the advantages of agriculture and farming outweigh the disadvantages? Explain

I think the advantages and disadvantages are just about leveled. Farming takes a lot of work and the expenses of resourses add up, but all the food you are supplied with my the end is pretty rewarding and you can even sell the food to get the money you spent in the process back. So that is two pros and cons for each. There is one other advantage, though, about working with agriculture, which is the beautiful garden you get to have and look at every day.