Greece vs Persia seems easy to us raised in the "Western Tradition."  Who doesn't love Greece?  The temples, the statues, the philosophers, the plays and poems...the birthplace of democracy, of Socratic reasoning and scientific inquiry...These are all beloved icons of our cultural heritage.  And then the wars with Persia:  brave, outnumbered Greeks fighting the hordes of Persian soldiers to preserve their independence.  What's to debate?

Of course a little bit of objective inquiry might balance the picture.  Greek society was heavily dependent on slavery, not only in militaristic Sparta but in glorious Athens as well. Women had almost no status in Greece, and peasants and other poor people were routinely exploited.  Greek society was also warlike with constant fighting among the city-states.  Not an easy place to raise your family if you're just a regular working guy.

On the other hand, the Achaemenid Persian Empire had much to recommend it.  The dominant religion of Persia, Zoroastrianism, discouraged slavery and invited everyone to seek salvation.  The empire allowed conquered regions to maintain their religions and other cultural traditions.  Persia built roads and irrigation canals to improve agriculture and commerce.  Perhaps most important, peace prevailed throughout the empire.  Maybe an easier place to raise your family if you're just a regular working guy.

Students sort of get the debatable points here.  They've all seen The 300, but some of them thought the tolerance and prosperity of the Persian Empire were attractive.  The prevalence of slavery certainly gives them pause as does the rigid patriarchy.  This sort of historical comparison and analysis is the main stuff of AP world history, and it's so much more interesting than just a bunch of factoids.

Next up:  the main event of the classical era, the Roman Empire vs Han Dynasty China.

The first big value based discussion in AP World History is about the Neolithic Revolution, the transition to agriculture and animal husbandry from a hunter gatherer lifestyle.  The result was a more reliable and abundant food supply, but less varied and thus less healthy. The cost was harder work and the emergence of class and gender hierarchy.  Agriculture led to settlements (cities eventually) in which some people could accumulate more wealth.  It also led to more children that women tended to stay home to raise, and the field work was harder than hunting and gathering so men's upper body strength was useful. Voila!  patriarchy and class divisions.

It's hard to imagine a world of hunter/foraging, and there certainly wouldn't be 7 billion people.  But humanity got along just fine thank you for a couple hundred thousand years that way.  Less work, more free time, healthier diet, more equality...leaves and rabbit salad anyone?

When confronted with this choice, most students choose agriculture, but some actually say they'd prefer the hunter/gatherer lifestyle.  They like the freedom and the ability to travel around. And some opt for the "compromise" pastoral lifestyle.  Good luck to all of them!

Next:  Life in Persia or in Greece...which was better?

      Now I'm teaching AP World History at the fabled Los Angeles magnet school LACES (Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies).  It's my fourth year at LACES teaching this wonderful subject, and it cries out for blogging!  (one blog per century maybe?)  Anyway I'm going to resist the tendency to write long posts this time around.  Suffice it to say that I like LACES a lot.  I am struck by the fact that 30 years ago I worked in a group called the Integration Project to integrate the LA schools and now I teach at one of the outcomes of that struggle, a series of integrated magnet schools.  Karma? You decide.
     Historically speaking, I become more and more interested in the Bronze Age Collapse in which a series of interconnected and complex societies in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East area all collapsed or declined within about a hundred years around 1200 BCE.  That would be the Hittite Empire, Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, and the kingdoms of the Levant and Mesopotamia (all destroyed) and Egypt (permanently weakened).  All of these cultures were connected by a dense web of trade, diplomacy and war (sound familiar, 21st century?).  The cause of this system-wide collapse is one of the great historical mysteries.  Was it the legendary "sea people" invading from the north?  or a devastating "earthquake storm"? or peasant rebellions? or some combination of these factors?  This remains a topic of lively debate.
     The similarity with the current world situation is striking.  A series of independent cultures all highly interdependent through trade and diplomacy, a world-system delicately balanced on a fulcrum of law and finance hanging precariously over a roiling sea of poverty and injustice.  Silicon Age Collapse anyone?