User talk:Jbergoffen/sandbox

I have absolutely no idea how we are supposed to review each others work, but I guess that's what I'm doing: Zoonoses: A Perfect Epidemidogical Storm

In this chapter, Scott emphasizes the idea of Agro-Pastoralism- "ploughed fields and domestic animals."''[I think here, if you want to say that he takes a positioned stance on agro-pastoralism, like "it was great," than using emphasize is the right word, you just need to mention what about it he is emphasizing. If you aren't trying to say that he takes a specific stance, maybe say that he explains the idea of agro-pastoralism or something like that]Bold text Man I have no idea what is going on with this bold text thing but I guess ignore that [1]He argues [Maybe you want to say questions? or wonders? I don't think argues is the right word here]as to why a hunter-gatherer, whom he believes has a relatively good and fulfilling life, would turn to this[I think that in academic writing, if wikipedia can even be called academic, you want to try to avoid using a pronoun for something a word from a different sentence if you have more than one subject. Does this make sense? It would just be a little more clear if you were explicit]. Substance [subsistence] farming is mundane and contains more drudgery than the hunter and gatherer societies. He then asserts the reason as to why these societies transformed into agro-pastoral societies was due to coercion by the state. He cites an archaelogical [I think there's supposed to be an 'o' somewhere in all those vowels] site in Mesopatamia named Aba Hureyra. Scott states "the entire transition from hunting and gathering to full-blown agriculture can be traced, put it, 'No hunter-gatherers occupying a productive locality with a range of wild foods able to provide for all seasons are likely to have started cultivating their caloric staples willingly.' "[1] [It seems like this sentence is not finished yet?] [I think you sum up the chapter well, and just need to revise what you have, I can't think of anything you've missed]

Agro-ecology of the Early State

Scott starts this chapter emphasizing the idea that the state takes credit where it does not befit [deserve? maybe befit is just too fancy for me, but I think it is slightly out of place]it. Scott explains in this chapter how many 'achievements' attributed to the state are actually present before state formation. Scott states that "If civilization is judged an achievement of the state, and if archaic civilization means sedentism, farming, the domus, irrigation, and towns, then there is something radically wrong with the historical order. All of these human achievements of the Neolithic were in place well before we encounter anything like a state in Mesopotamia." [2] He then goes on to explain that the idea of the 'first state' is hard to pinpoint because there are many times in history where civilizations follow state-like behavior, and archaelogical [another 'o' somewhere in there, I think] and historical evidence is hard to find. Scott then gives his definition of a state: "I propose to privilege those that point to territoriality and a specialized state apparatus: walls, tax collection, and officials."[3] [could you maybe explain this quote a little bit?] The Sumerian city of Uruk is cited as evidence of this being the first 'state' according to Scott. He cites that in Uruk, agroculture [agriculture] was a very difficult lifestyle to follow and required many people to be forced by the state to do this very hard labor, for instance, creating irrigation channels.[4] [this is kind of a roughly worded sentence, could you give rephrasing it a shot?] As a result of this, "warfare between rival polities"[5] was very prevalent during this period. Also, a new introduction of a staple food source allowed the state to heavily tax the people. Grains, especially wheat, became the best way to tax the people: "The cereal crops of the Old World, in this sense, preadapted for state making. The New World... has few if any determinate..."[6] Grain also is more valuable per weight than other sources of food, and is much easier to transport. [I think this one is much more developed than your other one, and is pretty much good to go. Also, I apologize if I'm not even supposed to review yours, but I thought I was supposed to and the good DR keeps complaining about it]