What is Jeopardy?

I did better than I thought I would during the jeopardy games. The majority of the questions that I was getting wrong had to do Islam and the majority of the questions that I got right had to do with China.

What Yerim Got Wrong: 

A: The two most important deities in the Hindu Pantheon.
Q: Who are Vishnu and Shiva?

A: The name of the ship that began to use the lateen sail (triangular sail).
Q: What is a dhow?

A: This administration used Persian techniques of statecraft.
Q: What is the Abbasid administration?

A: The Byzantine Empire used this since it placed an imperial province under the jurisdiction of a general because they provided military defense and handled civil administration.
Q: What is a 'theme' system?

A: This Frankish ruler is credited for saving the Roman Catholic church.
Q: Who is Clovis?

eggs benedict

"The Rule"
4. Monasteries that followed "Benedict's Rule" could be very useful institutions because enforcing the rules everyone is very controlled and tractable. Such strict rules such as 57. to apply oneself frequently to prayer and 63. to love chastity keeps the people under control. Another reason that the monasteries could be useful is because despite the harshness and lack of freedom the rules assert, the citizens are taught valuable lessons and live to be "good, model citizens". 3. then not to kill, 4. not to commit adultery, 5. not to steal, 6. not to covet, 7. not to bear false witness all encourage and pretty much forces one to become a moral citizen.

5. Socially, it is evident that these people lived in fear 24/7 365 days a year. Rules 44 & 45 (to fear the Day of Judgment & to be in dread of hell, respectively) exhibit such fearful behavior and the Rules definitely fostered this fear, perhaps to have greater control over the people. I can see the government using these rules to their full advantage and scaring the pants off of the people to coerce them into following orders. Economically, I think that the rules could have benefited society. With the fear and love for God that the monasteries encourage, everything is to be done for God. This could be motivational and make society work harder. The paragraph on "Of the Daily Manual Labor" frowns upon laziness and clearly these people were always out and about, getting things done. The Rules create a productive society who fear being lazy since if you are, you go to hell. oh, that's exciting.

The Fruit of the Gods

I liked the poems because I felt like that they flowed very well and was very rhymeish. I think that the poems reflected Indian society brcause they were very religious and reflected the caste system. "The Plums Tasted" talk about a poor girl who was in the bottom of the caste system. "The Pot is a God" talks about how the gods are one god.

P-O-E-T-R-Y... & repeat

Tang Poetry
- The poetry from the Tang empire were interesting to read because each other the three poets had a different passion. Li Bai wrote mostly about the state of drunkenness while Du Fu was a realist who wrote about the harsh reality of life and how it affects relationships. Wang Wei wrote about nature and his poetry was very serene. I enjoyed all the poems especially Wang Wei's "A Green Stream"  because it was very calming and created a lovely visual imagery. I also liked Du Fu's "Alone in Her Beauty" for its striking realism and candidness and how he portrays human emotions so beautifully. Each of the poets had a distinct style of writing but there were some common themes. Both Li Bai and Du Fu write about being drunk. All three have the presence of nature in their poems. I think that the poems reflect Tang society well because this art of poetry gives us a glimpse of the social life back then and what things were exciting or devastating. I can sense that the Tang society liked to celebrate but also had political or economic troubles. It is also evident that nature was very prominent in their culture.

Song Poetry
- I also enjoyed Song poetry a lot mostly because it focused so much on nature which is always nice to read about. All three poets talk about nature which must play a prominent role in this culture as well as the Tang culture. Mei Yaochen and Li Yu both write about a woman. Like Tang poetry, some aspects of Song poetry (Su Shi) mention drinking. I think that the poetry reflects the society well but I think that Tang poetry reflected its society better. The poems give me a sense to more of what the individual beliefs were rather than the society as a whole. For example, I can sense that Su Shi has a somewhat degrading tone towards his newborn son because he wants him to be born ignorant.

Conversions of Two Important Men

Both Prince Vladimir and Constantine converted to Christianity during the course of their lifetime. Although how and why they converted are different events, their legacies are both great.
Prince Vladimir was what you would call a hard-core partier... but he wanted to unite his kingdom with a common religion. In something similar to auditions for a play or musical, he had scouts check out different religions. Both Islam and Judaism did not make the cut because of their dietary restrictions. The man liked to eat. The final contestants were Roman and Eastern Christianity. A few of his scouts visited the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and were amazed. They told of how great the beauty and wonder was which in turn made the decision for Vladimir. The beauty was what bought him over. He converted to Orthodoxy and not only gained a unified nation, but also a wife by the name of Anna.
Constantine's conversion led to Vladimir's. So I suppose that these two events are similar events in history. They both wanted a better kingdom and by converting, they did obtain a larger, better kingdom. Constantine's desire to win a war led to his religious dreams and revelations which in turn made him convert. Both men spread Christianity and made it more widely known.

Art from So Far Long Ago

trends of the architecture:
- tall, rectangular buildings with rectangular windows
- domes
- peaks/ towers
- tall, rounded windows
- barely any flat roofs, the roofs are curved

is it distinctive/unique?: 
The architecture is definitely distinctive to a certain point. I imagine that one can look upon a picture of a building emphasized by domes and long windows and categorize it as something of the Byzantine nature. The architecture that I looked at were either tall, rectangular buildings such as Dionysiou and Simonas Petras; or they were marked by domes and rounded windows such as Philotheou  and Hagia Sophia.

functional? decorative? all of the above?
Byzantine architecture is very decorative but I also think that it was functional in a way. The churches and monasteries are absolutely breath-taking and beautiful. It is clear that the artists and architects had beauty and wonder in mind when they built them. The buildings were functional also because the churches and monasteries housed people who went there to worship and some are still standing today.


influenced American architecture?:
There are traces of Byzantine architecture in today's American architecture. This is evident in the numerous tall rectangular buildings that have taken over the country. The domes are as abundant especially on government buildings such as the Capitol Building's dome.

Take Me Back to Constantinople; Now it's Istanbul, Not Constantinople

Document 1: written by a Jewish rabbi named Benjamin of Tudela who is writing to the Jews. He writes about the glorious wonders of Constantinople but how the Jews are treated poorly.
Document 2: written by Robert of Clari to the general public about the riches and wonders of Constantinople and how when it was captured its captors were amazed by its wealth and beauty. The document talks about the many cathedrals maybe to suggest the importance of religion to the Byzantine Empire.
Document 3: written by Nicetas Choniates to the general public about how the Latins went into Constantinople and destroyed the art.
Document 4: The map is not very trustworthy because the scale is not credible and the buildings look block and too large. There are few cathedrals to show how religion was important. The land is surrounded by water and watch towers to illustrate how defensive they were and ready for attacks.
Document 5: The photo of the interior of Saint Sophia Cathedral shows the new type of art and architecture that was stirring in the Byzantine Empire.
Document 6: written by George Acropolites to the world and is a third-party narrative about the journey of the emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus. The emperor performed religious ceremonies and gave the patriarch the throne.
Document 7: written from a viewpoint of a citizen and talks about the great things the Venetians have done. It also talks about the special benefits and privileges the Venetians have. This document is not very trustworthy because it only mentions Constantinople for its trading port.

I think that Document 1 and 2 are the most credible documents because they both describe Constantinople in great detail from the wealth and riches to the cathedrals, even specific ones such as Saint Sophia. Many of the other documents do not discuss Constantinople in this much of detail or barely mentions it.

Follow the Silk Road

3 things that went well

1. working with a partner- it divided the workload and made everything easier since everybody has their strengths and weaknesses 
2. writing the essay- the internet database is so easily navigated through google, makes me wonder how civilization made it this far without it........ 
3. coloring the map- the public school system has been training us since day 1

3 things that turned my smile upside down

1. drawing the map- ocd+attempting to make a grid+a not so accurate grid+a not so great scale= disaster
2. time management- oh, the things that distract you in class
3. the fact that we had a day off- oh mother nature, how you tease us so

the hardest part(s?): trying to get enough work done in class so we could do the least amount possible at home & actually picking our products, so indecisive ... 

collaboration: sarah parker. was a fabulous time. the only downfall was when we couldn't get in contact of each other for like 2 days 

l'esprit de l'escalier (things left unsaid/things left undone): if i had a time machine and could go back again, i would work faster on the map and actually remember to take it home so i could work on it over the weekend! 

Academy of Morals 2.0

JESUS
- do not be vengeful, but in stead give them more than they ask for
- love your enemies
- everyone is equal- everyone is God's child
- treat everyone equally
- do unto others, what you want others to do unto you
- blessed are the weaker links, focused more on the poor instead of the rich
ZARATHUSTRA
- be more honest and moral
- do good deeds for you will be judged
- the material world is a blessing but worldly things should be enjoyed in moderation
- "good words, good thoughts, good deeds"
CONFUCIUS
- ren: be courteous, respectful, diligent, loyal
- li: sense of propriety
- xiao: filial piety, respect for elders
DAOISM
- live in harmony
- selflessness
- moderation
- detachment, don't be engaged in the world of politics and wars
- humility
BUDDHA
- compassion
- honest work
- shared happiness
- harmony and meditation
- avoid anger, greed, lust, envy
- generosity
- truthfulness
HINDU
- follow caste system and do your proper duties
- eliminate karma, good or bad
SOCRATES
- what defines morality is based on mere definitions
- humans could lead honest lives
- honor is more important than success, fame, or wealth
- should strive for personal integrity
- act honorably toward others
- work to build a just society

Po-tae-to, Po-tat-o: From a Seedling to ...........

Why do empires form? Is it due to the thirst for expansion? Urge for control? Domestic Issues? One Elitist? The answer: all of the above. Human desires take over and whilst power and wealth has its ups, it sure has its downs as well.
Rome: a paragon of how wealth and power lead to corruption but hey, it led to an empire. At the beginning, the Gracchi brothers attempted to rule with iron fists when it came to land distribution. Unfortunately, as the republic grew, different social classes felt as if they deserved more land. This led to heightened social tensions and a civil war. The rulers who controlled the Roman "ground", I suppose that's what it shall be called for now, only fueled the anger of the people and made things worse. Then Julius Caesar rose from the ground and became immensely popular. He became "that guy". His politics were headed in the way of a centralized government and after him, that's the road the Romans took.
China: Internal conflicts led to the unification of China and therefore those conflicts led to an empire that ruled over the unified China. During the Period of Warring States multiple dynasties tried to unify China again and become rulers over a vast piece of land. Economic development also led to the unification and "empirzation"of China as the economic prospered there was a need for rules and regulations. Whenever there is a need for some sort of authority, usually someone steps up the plate and takes control leading to a centralized government.
India: After Alexander the "Great" left an empty void with no one to take his place in India, different people, who believed that they were the ones who could bring change, attempted to unify all of India. In fact, Alexander's absence spurred the formation of empires. The unification of India, economic development, and social distinctions all were factors in the process of the creation of the Indian empire(s).

Old School vs. New School

Textbooks vs. Wikipedia. Although wikipedia is definitely easier and more accessible- seeing how you can pretty much you can see it anywhere and anytime- it still has a long way to go. Anyone with a brain and access to the internet can manipulate anything on the internet. So if you come across a page on wikipedia about a creature who can breathe fire and likes to eat little children, obviously it exists. I mean, it's on wikipedia... the internet doesn't lie! Wrong. So for accuracy and legitimacy, the textbook wins this round. Just going on wikipedia and typing whatever you need to research and have this whole page on everything you'll ever need to know about perhaps, hypothermia or the invention of post-its is wonderful but it's just feeding our generation with the belief that the internet is some sort of a god. At this rate, we won't even know what books are or how to find something in, god forbid it ever happens, the dictionary- a real, solid, made of paper dictionary. What's going to happen to us when the internet shuts down for a couple of days, weeks, months, or even years? Even though wikipedia is easy to use, I still prefer the old-school textbooks. They give me a little bit of hope that we're not all doomed to live in a society who types only with numbers and symbols and talk in texting lingo. 

How to Behave

           Krishna guilt trips Arjuna into entering a battle by using the caste system as his double-edged sword. Krishna begins by lecturing on the cycle of life- that everything that lives, death is certain and to everything that dies, life is certain. According to the circle of life, Arjuna shouldn't worry about the battle; he should especially abstain from pondering about what the outcome of the battle will be. Instead, he should charge into the battle with a feeling of detachment: live and die without a care about the battle. If he does decide to turn his back on the battle, Krishna notes that not only would he be betraying himself and his duties, but his family and his fellow soldiers. Ah, the weight of tainting his family name fully crushing down on his poor shoulders. Krishna doesn't make things any better as he goes on saying: "so basically, you should go into battle and forget that today could be your last day... but don't worry, if you die it's better for you anyways".
          Confucius would look upon this and praise how this is a pure example of li. He would side with Krishna and urge Arjuna to fulfill his role by supporting his people and rushing into battle. Following Krishna's advice would uphold Confucius's belief that people should respect and follow their superiors. But Confucius would frown upon all the talk about death and life and reincarnation. He would think that they were wasting too much time discussing religion. "Heaven and reincarnation are too big of ideas for mere humans to ponder upon", he would say.
           Krishna's earnest urges are parallel to Zarathustra's teachings in which he is describing a rewards system where if Arjuna does the right thing, go to battle, he will be rewarded with heaven but if he does not then his bad deeds will be rewarded with bad things. So I suppose that both Krishna and Zarathustra advocate the idea of karma. Along with the idea of a heaven and hell, the Bhagavad Gita has more similarities to Zarathustra's teachings than those of Confucius. 

Judgement Day

What qualifies as a good blog? a great one? a bad one? How do you judge another's blog? 

          A blog is something supposed to represent one's thoughts, emotions, and everyday encounters with life. In a sense, a blog is a small window into the life of another person whether it may be someone you know or a stranger on the internet. To enjoy someone's blog is one thing but to judge/asses the worth of that blog is something entirely different. In the blogging world, "quality over quantity" applies strongly. Sometimes, strong messages are spoken (or perhaps written) in a mere amount of a couple of sentences but at times countless paragraphs will not be enough.
          Length should not play any role. It's the quality, the meaning, what's spoken through the words that matter. The amount of thought and effort put in should be taken into account. Seeing as how, this is a school yet personal blog, the blogger's persona should shine through. Everyone has their own distinct style of writing- of talking. This blog should be used not only to spit out facts and thoughts but also to express. Different fonts, sizes, creative titles, pictures should all be used in the way the blogger wants to. CAPITALIZATION, bold, italics, bold&italics, underline, crossed out should be freely used in the way that the blogger sees fit. They shouldn't see this as just another homework assignment for just another mundane class but something more along the lines of a creative outlet to express oneself in an educational way. Maybe it's because I have a personal blog of my own or I enjoy reading others but I truly think that the blog should be like an summary or introduction to the blogger just as a book has a short enticing excerpt or summary in either the back or inside flap. But seeing as how, this is not completely a personal blog but rather an educational tool used for learning, proper grammar and spelling should be used to some extent. "typng lyk this 4 sch00l is n0t c00l fosho" The blog should be seen as an essay or project in the aspect that the writing rules we have been taught continuously  in school should be respected. Just think: would you pass in an essay with sentances lyk this nd b gr@ded 4 it? I don't think so.
          To receive a 3: the blog should be creative and fun to read, something that the reader enjoys reading. It should be enticing and interesting with valid, deep, well-thought out responses that have a tint of that person in them. (I hope my blog has at least a bit of "yerim" in it). Proper spelling and grammar should be displayed .
          To receive a 2: the question or topic would be expanded but it could have been expanded or talked about more. The blog is still a tad bit enticing but you lose focus at times. Proper english language may not be used.
          To receive a 1: "the i'm doing this just for the sake of doing it" blog. The blog answers the question or expands on the topic in the most minimalist way. It's a little boring and could use a little more "pizazz" and sparkles.
          Even though it's a little harsh, 0s should be given out. This would be very rare and would only happen in cases where there is no expanding. The blog post would merely be an answer or topic sentence like "Alexander the Great is great" or "Alexander the Great is not great".
          The overall grade should be given by the teacher but I think that other students should be able to read and comment on each other's blogs. If the grading is to be done by students, I think that it should be done anonymously because that would allow people to be more honest with their judgments. No one wants to be that "jerk" who gives someone a bad grade even if that person deserves that grade. Another idea is for maybe one or a couple of blogs to be chosen and displayed after every blog topic/question. This would encourage and motivate people to try harder and really put their effort since everybody has that little flame inside of them that wants to sparkle in the spotlight.

Wise Words from a Wise Man

Book III. 16: The Master said, “The gentleman understands what is moral, the small man understands what is profitable.”

GOVERNMENT(noun): the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

CORRUPT(adj): characterized by improper conduct (as bribery or the selling of favors); depraved

These two terms, supposed to be as far away from each other as possible, have been used interchangeably. Throughout history, there have been tales of numerous corrupt leaders or systems of government. This shouldn't come off as surprising since human beings are just merely human beings with human lustful indulges. We're all corrupt in some way. And when you put a group of humans together and give them the task of governing over other human beings, things can get messy. A government ruled by humans, who are inherently corrupt in some way or another, is bound to have some problems. The whole is the sum of its parts. Like dominoes, one corrupt person can persuade others to become like them and with one flick, the whole government falls down. 

So as our dear friend Confucius says, our government should be "controlled" by gentlemen not small men. In every type of government, isn't it the leader's job to look out for the country? This stands true even for dictators and tyrants. What is a leader without a country to rule? The day when the leaders truly place the people before their own needs will be the day of world peace. Even the tiniest decisions can be ruled by personal feelings and emotions. You have to be willing to put your life on the line to do what is right. The gentleman would sacrifice his reputation, money, etc. for the good of the people- to do what is moral. The small man would do what he thinks will benefit him the most. Nowadays, there are many small men in the governments all around the world and this is why our world is so corrupt.

They say that history repeats itself. Maybe a reincarnation of Confucius will happen to come strolling by and give the world a wake up call. with the technology these days, perhaps a machine will be created to convert small men into gentlemen. just a thought. 

Alexander loses the Mr. Great Pageant

Does Alexander deserve to be called the Great? There's no doubts that he was a skillful leader and warrior- one who went as far as to avenge the death of his enemy. But there is a tad bit of a problem in his personality. A truly great leader has to be great all around, not just a part of them. Sure, he even endured the same hardships as his soldiers because he believed that the soldier's morale would be heightened if he suffered with them. So he fought with the human desire of thirst and poured water on the ground. Maybe it's just my cynicism kicking in but did he do that for himself.... or for his soldiers? He was faced with a variety of choices. Choice A: turn around and go home. The pros definitely outweighed the cons on this one, but Alexander is not a quitter, not even close. so, choice A has got to go. Choice B: keep fighting through the desert in the hopes that he'll conquer the world. But maybe I shouldn't say "in the hopes" because in his mind, he was going to conquer the world. Seems a little cocky? well, when you do end up gathering an empire way before your 30s, you get some confidence in yourself. So choice B it is. Choice B is a package deal- more decisions down the road. It'a like a little game. "As you're struggling through the desert with no water to be found and your soldiers are dying, literally dying, to go home. Oh look, behold, some of your soldiers have found water- precious water. Since you are the great and mighty king, you are presented with the water in a helmet (clearly sanitary). What do you do?" Choice A: take the water and drink it since you are dying of thirst or Choice B: dump the water and let the dry, barren desert soak it up because, you know, your soldiers will appreciate the thought. Alexander picked Choice B. And apparently, his soldiers did indeed appreciate the thought and his action gave them a fighting spirit. Although, one could see why this would contribute to his deserving of the title, one could also see a sort of manipulative sense in Alexander. By squandering the water and taking on the appearance of a more modest man, Alexander is sure to have won more followers. But the problem is that he would never be just another mortal- he had already acquired a huge empire- and Alexander is sure to have been aware that he wasn't like the rest of his soldiers.

If one was to go with the latter, and chose to see Alexander in a more cynical way then one is sure to think that he does not deserve the title of being "THE GREAT". Just to add to that, it is told that he once murdered his best friend due to a difference in opinions. This says a lot about his character. He is quick to anger, judgmental, and stubborn. Even though he was being stopped by his guards and other friends, Alexander had the "perseverance" to grab a spear and impale his best friend. At least he was devastated when he came to his senses. I guess it would be a good point to include that he was so overly wasted. But that was common for the Macedonians- they drank all the time. and they even won wars drunk. If he is capable of fighting and strategically winning a battle drunk, then why was he not capable to think clearly about killing his best friend? In the cynical viewpoint, was he saddened by the thought that his best friend had died and that he was the hand that dealt the blow or was he worried about his reputation. History shows that a small little place decided to go against his orders one day. Just a little place of no strategic importance filled with mostly women and children. Alexander ordered all these towns to surrender unconditionally to him, they all did but one. So instead of just letting them be, he altered the making of the earth so that he could reach them and destroy them. He sold the women and children into slavery. This could show his devotion to battle or it could show his inhumane side a little bit. The town was of no importance and would not be a great, big addition to his mighty kingdom yet he went out of his way to show to the other little places who were thinking of rebelling that he would do anything, and clearly he meant anything, to show his power and crush them. Ooh, another fun "Alexander when he's drunk story". After conquering the great and mighty Persian empire, Alexander decided to "party it up" at Persepolis. I imagine that his invites would have looked something like this: Party at Persepolis. Be there or be square. Come see me, Alexander the Great and celebrate my victory (yes, another one. I'm just that great). They're just chilling and drinking (what else is new?) and a fair maiden in distress (cliche) decides to speak up about how the Persians should be punched in the face for disrespecting the Greeks and Macedonians a few ole' decades ago. Fired up from his victory and the booze, Alexander picks his drunkard self off the ground and takes the party a notch up and starts to burn the palace down. I'm sure he regretted burning down the palace of the Persian Empire he so admired when he healed from his major hangover. Sure, he was motivated to do this by a girl, he's a guy. He, with all his moral codes and ethics, burned a palace down. A sure sign of disrespect. Ironic, since he chased his enemy's killer down but then proceeds to burn his enemy's kingdom down to the ground. Surely, if he did this in the modern world, he would be accused of being a pyromaniac and the fire department would put him on their blacklist.

Taking on more of a cynical viewpoint, Alexander didn't deserve his title. There's no doubt that he was a good leader in the military aspect. But looking at the big picture, he missed a few points here and there. Looking at this question "does he deserve his title?" in a way you would look at a competition such as a pageant then... I guess we can call this the Mr. Great pageant and to win, you need to have a perfect score. I am confident that he would have scored very highly for his strategic planning and military conquests but he would lose a few points for his personality. To be Mr. Great, you still need to have a great personality even if you're a great military leader. So in this sense, Alexander would score around a 7/10. He doesn't deserve to be called "THE GREAT". Maybe he should have changed his name to something along the lines of "Alexander the A Little Above Average but Still Lacking in the Personality Department."