Posted: November 19th, 2022

The political structure of early MesoAmerican societies

The political structure of early MesoAmerican societies
1) The early MesoAmerican political structure is reminiscent of the Greek social structure in place between different city-states. The people of MesoAmerica, like the Greeks, were made up of many different groups, each distinct in culture and practices while still encompassing an overarching unity of their larger surrounding area. Of course, these religious and cultural differences lead to military conflicts, much like the warring city-states of Ancient Greece. These various groups were able to share ideas through this pan-cultural and separate political structure, as well as share some common unity despite their vast diversity; the Video: MesoAmerica emphasizes this “Constant communication resulted in the formation of a Pan MesoAmerican identity (5:05). “When one considers the vast diversity in schools of thought, territories, and democratic societies that ranged in difference from one group to the next, a resemblance between the two structures is clear.” “Unity in the Greek world was at best fleeting and was never achieved by the Greeks themselves (Video: Early Greek World 8:49).” This quote from only a few weeks ago sounds strikingly similar to one about MesoAmerican societies: “MesoAmerica was never unified under a single civilization or empire (Video: MesoAmerica 4:31).” The similarities in political structure of each overarching area can explain the pan-cultural unity that contrasts with the multitude of diverse societies in both the early Greek and MesoAmerican worlds.

2) Socrates provided greater contrast to his inhabited society, and evidence of this can be found in a variety of ways, but his execution and its foundation speak for themselves. The Buddha’s teachings were followed, he was given money and resources to establish a community of monks, and his practices were endorsed and practiced by powerful rulers. Now, Socrates was also a recipient of the kindness of elite benefactors in Greek parliament; however, after his execution, he was not a publicly glorified figure like the Buddha, on whom the ruler Ashoka attempted to build his empire. Socrates wanted those with whom he interacted to question everything, whereas the Buddha sought peace in his immediate surroundings. He provided an answer to what appeared to be meaningless suffering, in which Socrates’ insights helped deconstruct the reality that suffering was based on. One area where the two are strikingly similar is in their pursuit of virtue and what is right.” Socrates was deeply concerned with issues such as virtue, justice, wisdom, and knowledge, all of which he saw as interconnected. We must learn and apply virtues in our daily lives. For Socrates, knowledge is liberating because it reveals what is true and best (Video: Socrates- Life and Death 1:06). “Socrates’ search for what reflects true reality and how to follow it parallels the Buddha’s concern for what was right. In fact, as Herbst mentions in his video on the Buddha, he was awakened to “true reality” by achieving nirvana or enlightenment. Both want what is right and true in the world; however, their approaches to achieving this truth are almost polar opposite. Socrates’ quest involved observing the world around him, whereas the Buddha sought inner enlightenment and peace—his liberation from Samsara and the self.

3) In the end, Chandragupta had a greater impact on the Indian Empire. He was the leader who used militaristic and architectural tactics to transform his country into a fully formed and prosperous empire. Ashoka was more reflected on simply because he had the ability and foresight to write edicts based on how he wished to be remembered. This writing technology did not exist for Chandragupta, but that does not diminish his significance simply because it is less documented. As a leader, he believed in ruling in a way that would bring economic and militaristic prosperity while also balancing people’s happiness.” These included methods to boost economic prosperity through irrigation, new land cultivation, mining, and trade in order to secure a solid tax base, but only at a level that would keep people happy (Video: Empire in India 5:12). “He served the people, and this is a role that Ashoka later takes on, most likely as a result of Chandragupta’s success in ruling. “Truly, I consider the welfare of all to be my duty… (Edicts of Ashoka pg. 3),” he writes in his edicts. This “serving the people” mindset that he adopts in his writing is not new. His position had previously been held by Chandragupta, who, along with his Brahmin advisor, used this logic to bring prosperity, paving the way for Ashoka’s vision of success and how he would be represented to future generations.

Order | Check Discount