Title: Quote, Madeleine l’Engle
In class this week, we talked (and read) about how agriculture ultimately lead to the “big man”, or the leaders that rose to power because they had food, and they were in charge of that food. Since we have discussed in the past how food was most likely the first currency as well, this makes sense.
But who decided who would be the leaders of any particular farm? With managing agriculture comes a lot of workers. I wouldn’t think that people would have owned very much land if crops were not what they had in mind. One person cannot run an entire farm alone, so who has the right to claim the leader’s role?
My guess is this: there are natural leaders on this Earth. There are people who are just naturally better at managing people, and people who will just always be looked up to, because they have a certain quality that makes them almost magnetic to others. Within a group, such as even a classroom project, there will almost always end up being a team leader, whether it happened intentionally or not. So, by the same logic, there are natural-born followers.
I do not believe, however, that this means the value of anyone’s work is less important than any other. In a colony of ants, there is a leader and many worker ants. However, the colony could not survive without both. The leader gives them someone to fall back on, and all the little worker ants keep the colony functional.
What people had not come to realize at the time that leaders were first being used was that leadership isn’t in one’s genetics. Just because a person is what some see as a natural leader does not mean that their offspring will have the same qualities. This is how we get monarchies. So, the creation of agriculture may have been the first occurrence of leaders, it was human error that lead to such misconceptions as monarchies are always the way to go.