Saying adieu to AP world

The test........

I thought that the multiple choice was a lot easier than I thought so. There were some questions that were difficult just because it asked about a specific time period. But it was just because the time period they gave us was in years and my brain didn't want to change the years into the names of the time period like classical, etc. There were only a few questions that I felt like I didn't know what the heck they were talking about.

The essays, on the other hand, were interesting to say the least.... Two of them were about trade and trade routes and that's a topic that I didn't really study a lot. It was something that I did not expect. I was hoping that it would be on gender roles or something social...

Overall, I'm a little iffy about the grades........

To be Communist or Not to be Communist

After reading the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848....

4 positive/constructive things:

1.  public education for children- by becoming Communist, Marx and Engels propose that all children be given free education in public schools. This is a positive thing because education always seems to be a winning factor in anything, with education, the children will be able to live better and more educated lives
2. abolish child labor in factories- while they encourage education for children, they also advocate for the abolition of child factory labor which in turn would provide children the time and opportunity to go to school and learn rather than wasting their life away working in a factory where it is dangerous and not a very qualified child center
3. this is where it kind of ends.........

4 negative/destructive things:

1. abolition of all rights of inheritance- this with the addition of no competition will cause the economy to never improve because if whatever you collect and work hard for in this life isn't going to be saved for your children then is it worth it to even have the will to work for it at all?
2. getting rid of competition- competition is what drives a society/economy to grow and prosper. Without competition, the economy will just be in a stalemate and not change at all which makes sense in a communistic nation because everyone gets an equal share but taking human nature into mind, people will get greedy and want more than what everyone else gets and things will start getting messy.
3. obligation of all to work equally- when you take inheritance out of the picture, some people start to feel as if it's not worth working; they don't want to work because it's not worth it but they are forced to by the government which will then lead to anger and hatred towards those in power
4. taxes, taxes, taxes- according to the manifesto, one of the ten main things is "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax". With just one look at history, it is clear that people do not like taxes and a heavy one is not going to make people like them more. Unhappy commoners are never good for a nation.

Those Who Start Revolutions

I shall begin by describing the paintings individually.
George Washington: very regal background, lush red curtain, sword in one hand, standing upright, stern expression, one hand gesturing to unknown, throne like chair in background, fully dressed in uniform
Marat: sitting down in bathtub? bed?, holding a quill in one hand, a document in the other; bleeding; eyes closed, looking down, seems to be naked
Toussaint: standing upright, fully dressed in uniform, holding sword in one hand and a document in the other, wearing hat with feather on it, soldier in the background, stern expression
Bolivar: standing upright, stern expression, holding a rod or sword or something in one hand, the other hand is on his heart, dressed in uniform, quills in background

All of these paintings have the men holding something in at least one hand. Washington holds a sword, Marat: a quill and a document, Toussaint: a sword and document, Bolivar: a sword/rod. I think that they are portrayed in this way because it gives them a purpose- makes them look like they are going to achieve something. Another similarity is that Washington, Toussaint, and Bolivar are all standing upright, fully clothed in an elegant uniform. I think that this is done to show that they are men of rank, or power. Lastly, all four men have stern facial expressions. This serious nature of their persona characterize them as men who are ready to lead a revolution, as men who are capable of it. Rather than a smiling or silly expression, a more serious one leads one to believe that they can accomplish what is put before them, that they are not weak.

As previously mentioned, the artists portray these men in this way because it makes them appear to be competent and able in leading people to revolt. The artists chose certain facial expressions and body language to show that these four men were serious in what they were doing, that they knew what they were doing. For the future generation, these paintings give somewhat of a distorted view on these four men just because the artist purposely choose to display them in a specific way to get their point across. The paintings convince the future generations that these men were regal, brave, and confident. They convince them that these men changed lives and that they knew how to do it as well.

Revolutions need heroic figures because it is simply human nature to follow someone who takes charge. There are people who are "leaders" and those who are "followers". Those who are "followers" are naturally inclined to follow the "leaders" and without the "leaders", the "followers" feel as if they can accomplish nothing. The most heroic thing about heroic figures is their aura and their confidence-how they portray themselves to others. Most likely, no one is willing to follow someone who is weak and doubts themselves. People like to follow people who are confident and act like they know what they are doing. It's also the group/mob mentality of people but it's also the human nature of some to take charge and seize the day.

6 Apps on a Killing Spree

I thought that what Niall Ferguson was saying made a lot of sense. I really liked how he gave a little background information first before diving into his main concept. I liked his analogies of using Germany and Korea to explain that divergences occur not because of geography but because of the people, the idea, and the institutions. I enjoyed the fact that he made jokes and had a sense of humor, which made him even more interesting to watch rather than it being a boring lecture. These are the six killer apps that he discussed in his TED talk: competition, the scientific revolution, property rights, modern medicine, the consumer society, and work ethic. These are the six killer apps of prosperity that are the cause of the great divergence. The one that I agree with the most is competition because I think that competition is a huge aspect of getting farther in life. I think that competition really encourages others to work and try harder instead of settling. With competition, when someone thinks of a really great idea it will push someone else to think of something better and with that, there is progress in the world. One super interesting thing that he said was that the Western hemisphere was basically falling apart, it was losing it's head start to a lot of Eastern countries. Ferguson said that the apps are open to download anywhere and once they're downloaded, that country shoots up ahead faster than the Western hemisphere when it started the race. I think that's really unique and interesting to think about because the Eastern hemisphere is catching up and even passing the Westerners not only in academics but also in economic prosperity and technological advancements.
I think that it's mainly because of work ethic. I feel as if that the Western hemisphere has reached a point where it is so comfortable how it is that it doesn't feel like it has to make improvements while other countries are working their butts off trying to improve and obtain a better lifestyle. America needs to watch its back.

Even besides his lecture, I loved the way that Niall Ferguson presented himself. My favorite quote is, "You can play a game and try to think of one I've missed at, or try and boil it down to just four, but you'll lose." I really liked his confidence and persona on stage and I learned a lot just by watching him talk and give his lecture.

Another Week, Another Blog Post

1) I think that the textbook authors chose to put the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals together all in one chapter (chapter 28) because they thought that it would be a good way to nicely incorporate all three together. Since all three groups are Muslim empires, it would be easier to put them together instead of giving them all each one chapter of their own. It also seems like there are different amounts of information on each group so maybe if they were given their own chapter, then there would not be enough information in the chapter. Personally, I think that this is a good decision because it's easier for me to study and read. Having them all grouped together in one chapter really compacts it down for me and it's easier for me to see the similarities and differences better. I just think that it's structurally and geographically easier to locate information and learn when similar groups are together in a chapter like how China and Japan are usually paired together.

2) In general, I think that global interactions are a positive thing. There are both pros and cons to interactions but overall, I think that just the concept of trading and discovering new cultures and customs is a really wonderful thing. Interactions expand knowledge and how people think. Without an inflow of new information, a lot of discoveries would never have been made. Humans are made to bounce ideas off each other and to influence each other. Although numerous diseases were spread due to global interactions, lots of religions and new ideas were spread as well.

Fabian Fucan Breaks Up with Christianity

With his writing "Deus Destroyed", Fabian Fucan hindered the spread and acceptance of Christiantiy in Japan. There were religious, cultural, historical, political, and social aspects to his attack on Christianity. Basically, Fabian Fucan is stating that Christianity is crooked and evil and that he feels as if he has wasted over twenty years studying and following it. Just with that statement, he is influencing many people to turn away from Christianity. In fact, in this way he is almost brainwashing them, pleading them to turn their head away from Christianity and close their doors to it. The religious effect is tremondous since he is clearly bashing on a religion that has started to make its mark in Japan. As I said, he hindered the spread and prevented Jesuits from reaching out. The Japanese who read this would have most likely ignored Christianity from then on, not even giving it a chance. Culturally, he attempted to stop the intermingling of Christianity. Like Neo-Confucianism, people could have taken bits and pieces of Christianity with other religions and mixed it all together to form some type of a melting pot. Historically, he was a game changer. If Christianity had successfully taken over Japan with the help of the Jesuit orders, then who knows what present day Japan could be like? This goes for the political aspect too. Religion plays a huge role in a person's morals and beliefs and if rulers had been Christian, they might have made different decisions and changed Japan completely or even just a little bit. Socially, I'm sure that his decision to write "Deus Destroyed" and propagate his beliefs that Christianity is made up of lies affected not only the Japanese people but also the Jesuits who were trying to spread their religion. Because most Eastern countries are very stubborn and set on their ancient traditions and beliefs, it must have been difficult for new religions to be spread. Taking that into consideration, this attack on their beliefs most definitely made it even harder for the Jesuits to spread Christianity. They probably would have been ostracized and even attacked or harrassed.

Chapter 26 Presentation

https://docs.google.com/presentation/pub?id=1pj1senmnmczcKnBdXoPiPkNjQJVZTaid0NKo3ei3OcM&start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000

Capitalism: Then & Now

Just as a recap, my previous definition of capitalism was:
"Capitalism
I don't know that much about capitalism but I do know that it's a type of economic system that I'm pretty sure that America uses. It has something to do about the way the economy is run in a way where competition is encouraged and monopolies are prevented by government laws."

After reading the passage: 

I think that capitalism is an economic system (which I said in my previous definition) that led to a boom in the reconstruction of European society. It works in a way in which merchants and manufacturers make their products available to a free marker where competition leads into population growth and urbanization. Capitalism allowed for an increase of the variety and quality of goods and products. Capitalism seems to be also a little unfair because it has to do with private companies and private parties who the book says "seek to take advantage of marker conditions to profit from their activities (649)." Instead of the government controlling the economy, capitalism is a step forward into a society where the people call the shots. It's quite obvious why Europe took so much interest in capitalism when they started to de-centralize. I think that Capitalism, while it is unfair at times, is advantageous for the common people mainly because of the push and pull system of "supply and demand". In this way, the consumers have some control over the economy since they control the "demand" end of the stick. If they play their cards right, they could end up buying products at a bargained price if they pay attention to the "supply". Although the "putting out system" is ridiculously one sided in advantages, it still gave the rural people jobs. In a way, capitalism was like a mandatory play that schools put on where everyone played a part in. 

2Cs: Christianity & Capitalism

Christianity
 Like the tree that was drawn on the board today, Christianity is also a tree with different types branching out from the trunk, and those branches branching out even further. The main reason for this division, in my opinion, is people. Although Christianity focuses on the will of God, it is human beings who spread it and advocate for it. Humans keep Christianity up and running. And sometimes humans have different opinions about how things should be run and that is how the church splits. Difference of opinions and customs allowed for Christianity to divide and diverge.


Capitalism
I don't know that much about capitalism but I do know that it's a type of economic system that I'm pretty sure that America uses. It has something to do about the way the economy is run in a way where competition is encouraged and monopolies are prevented by government laws.

UFC: Griots Face Down Textbooks

Griots (noun): any of a class of musician-entertainers of western Africa whose performances include tribal histories and genealogies 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/griots

Pros:

• more personal, can feel the emotions 
• musical
• can connect to the history more easily 

Cons:

• biased, subjective
• too emotional
• details could be left out after numerous times the story is told
• the history could be interpreted in different ways by different viewers/listeners 

Griots vs. Textbooks: I think that while the griot-based history is more enlightening on a personal, emotion level because the viewer/listener could really be able to connect with the griot, the textbook is a better option to get accurate details about the history. The textbook is more objective than subjective, so it is easy to be able to trust the source.

The Judge Has Spoken

Overall, I enjoyed this assignment and I thought it was a really creative and fun way to get the students into really thinking about the Mongols. It was not just another average school project, but something that was good enough to look forward too. It was a lot of fun watching the actual trial (when it's not your turn...). I think it had it's ups and downs. The research was definitely a lot easier than performing the actual thing. If you were a character then you couldn't predict what the cross-examinator was going to grill out of you. I thought that it was more entertaining to brainstorm and conjure the back stories. I especially liked Sarah's back story; when I read in the textbook that intermarriage was outlawed, I knew that a heartwarming yet unfortunate love story had to take place. It was destined to be.
I don't think I have any regrets because even if I didn't do an excellent job, I felt as if I did the best I could. Public speaking isn't my best attribute. I couldn't even do poetry out loud properly in front of 5 people during class (yes, we only have 5 girls in our class. our knowledge of the english language scared the boys off). Since my character was sort of made up (a chinese peasant) I had to create a story for myself and since I didn't really have specific hardcore details to refer to during the trial, I think I did a pretty good job improvising.
Although Futaba made several good arguments today and I was proud to be on her team, my opinion on Genghis Khan stands. So even now, I still believe that the Mongols are not insane. They may have been guilty of murder and kidnapping among several other things, many other empires and conquerors have done the same thing. History seems to repeat itself. I think that how we should view them is very ambivalent seeing as how they could be seen as crazy murderers but they also were strategic and intelligent. So I would have to say that even though I do see good traits about them, from a logical, lawful standpoint: I would have to say that they are guilty of terrorism, kidnapping, and genocide.,

Genghis Khan: Insane Maniac or Brilliant Leader?

Is Genghis Khan crazy or not? 

I think that when most people hear the name Genghis Khan, they immediately think to the Mongols, the world's largest empire, and last but not least, the blood that was shed to acquire such land. 

To really determine if Genghis Khan was insane or not, I think that we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have to look at the time and place this happened. He didn't live in 21st America where the things that he did would take him to death row right away. He would be enjoying his last meal before his empire began to form. But this is not the present, this is the past. 

If you think back to where he lived and when he lived. Everything that he did is understandable. Looking at the environment that he was raised in, the question of nature vs. nurture comes forward. Human nature: we all think that everyone has deep rooted moral standards and if they don't... they at least have some sort of moral code they follow. I'm sure Genghis had a moral compass as well but I can imagine that it was way different that what mine is. His own clan left him and his family to fend for themselves after the death of his father. That betrayal must have broken something in him. Even now friendships, relationships, basically anything can be broken by betrayal. Everybody has a tinge of revenge hidden in them that strikes out when they feel a wrong has been done to them. It't the same thing. He was betrayed and he wanted revenge, or at least to get back the clan. 

You might say, "oh, but wait, remember when he killed his half-brother over a fish?". To that, I say yes I do remember but think of the horrible things that happen in the world even today over silly disputes. Back then, that's how they settled things I guess. Although he was at times cruel and barbaric, he believed deeply in diplomacy. So you can say that at least he tried to keep peace at first. 

Everybody does wrong. Great leaders that people venerate have murdered people. Think of all the army generals and war presidents who we all admire so much? Are they insane? And it's not Genghis, himself, killed each and every person who was killed. He did kill but so did his soldiers. And if that's the criteria for being insane, then I suppose George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were insane too. And although he did do some torture and other such things, there have been terrible torture methods that took place in America, not even a hundred years ago. Even now, protesters are injured and harmed. 

Genghis Khan is human. He makes mistakes. He does things wrong. Everybody does. 

He is just another human being. Not insane. 

And in the end, whose to say what's normal and what's not? Whose to say who's insane or mentally stable? Does anybody have the right and ability to judge those things? I think not. 

El Final

The final product:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12913851/parvez-and-baseema-tell-all


Xtranormal was a really interesting way to present my project which is why I picked it. I had a lot of fun listening and picking out accents and characters. The only problem was that there is a limit of free stuff you can use. And it takes a lot of time to load so that you can preview what you have so far. It was also hard because the characters can't really assert the tone that you want them to use so they just talk the way they want to and they are quite bad at accentuating the parts of the word that must be accentuated to make sense. So I hope that you can understand what I made them say. Overall, the project came out really good and I'm happy with my final product. Enjoy!

* Clicking on the link should take you straight to the video. It takes a while to load, so don't worry, it's all there.



Bibliography:

• Butler, Chris. "FC67: The Crusades & their impact (1095-1291)- The Flow of History ." The Flow of History. N.p., 2007. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC67>.
• Cline, Austin. "Muslim Perspective on the Crusades, Perspectives and Religion in the Crusades."About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusadesviews_2.htm>.
• . "Crusade." . WordIQ.com, 2010. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Crusade>. 
• Dynosoar, . "Islamic view of the Crusades." . Stardock Corporation, 02/06/2006. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://forums.joeuser.com/100054>.
• Hammond, Peter. "Jihad and Crusades ." . Frontline Fellowship, n.d. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/JihadAndCrusades.htm>.
• . "The Crusades (1095-1291)." . Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/crus/hd_crus.htm>.

Xtranormal

I decided to do a Xtranormal presentation for this project. I picked two adorable little animals to be my Muslim people who will be talking about the crusades and how they personally feel about them. The most difficult part of this project was that there wasn't much straight-forward information to go by so I had to infer a lot. I was wondering if I should make my characters have Arabic accents, but I didn't know if it was inappropriate or anything so I just decided to go with the classic British accents. Making the presentation with Xtranormal is a bit time-consuming so I'm glad I started this at 5 instead of like 8 or some other time later. It feels good not to procrastinate. I am a little worried that I am going to run out of things to say and that my presentation will be too short. I think that I'm going to do three Xtranormals, for each of the crusades I picked. I will use the same characters but different settings and it'll be like as if I was following them through the years. How exciting! I had to include a panda, my little British panda is just too cute. But.. back to work. I'll post the links up later when I am done.




****** Change of plans, I guess you only have 300 points to spend before you have to pay and buy more, so I shall only be making one presentation. NOT THREE. I guess I'll just have one of the characters narrate also for each time change.

Short & Sweet

Using sweet search...
As I was browsing through other's blogs and reading the comments and such (not in any way or form creepy... )
I read that someone suggested using sweetsearch.com, so I gave it a go. It's a pretty good website & I think as of now, it is the best source.
Some sources:
http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC67
http://boisestate.edu/courses/crusades/5th/
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4461
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/May-June-08/On-this-Day--Crusaders-Victorious-in-Siege-of-Jerusalem.html
http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/nelson/first_crusade.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/crus/hd_crus.htm
http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html


I think the biggest problem is that although the interwebs are helpful, there are not that many websites that really assert how the Muslims felt concerning the crusades. Even if you type "Muslim perspective on first crusade" things don't really come up. I have only found numerous websites that merely tell what happened, not really individual views. I am hoping that if I use other country's google then I will be more successful.

status update... what is this, facebook?

oh blogger, it's been a while. i don't check you every day life facebook. Maybe you and facebook should switch places...

SATURDAY: was initially a little confused about the project so I took this night as an opportunity to get some smart people's input. So Laura and Luke explained the project to me and we did some initial researching. yippie! Then we treated ourselves to a little fro-yo as a reward for being so focused. hehe.

MONDAY: More research time. I have officially decided to pick Crusades 1, 4, and 7 with the addition of some references to the smaller crusades as well. I felt like that these three crusades would align and work together well and they're all a little different so the Muslims would have several opinions about them.

TUESDAY: Hello Google, it's nice to meet you again.
Some links I found:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/472/bk2_472.htm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0042.html
http://forums.joeuser.com/100054
http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/Crusades/CR02.pdf
One problem I found was that some sites are very repetitive so I have decided to try some other search engines tomorrow and see if I get any luckier.

WEDNESDAY: Hello Yahoo, it's been a while. Bing, have we ever met before?
Ah, wikipedia.... I seem to have a little stalker on my case.... It keeps popping up everywhere, but from personal experience, wikipedia and I will be taking a little time apart from each other. It doesn't seem like wiki  is too pleased about that? Do I sense a restraining order?
Yahoo keeps throwing this book called "The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives" which would be a wonderful source if only it wasn't a book... available on google books that I have to buy.
Some sources from yahoo on the crusades:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2001/oct05.html
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=5486
http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusadesviews_2.htm

Some sources from bing on the crusades:
http://atheism.about.com/od/crusades/a/crusadesviews_2.htm
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Crusade

Overall, I thought that google worked the best and gave me the most information. Yahoo would lose this competition because it didn't really narrow the search results down for me. It wasn't necessarily very useful. I liked that Bing would change the color of the link if I had clicked it before even if I had clicked it from google or yahoo. That was really nice because then I didn't have to click it again and waste time. Now that I got most of my research done, I'll work on the final proudct tomorrow.
I am hoping to do either a powerpoint or an animation because I feel like, personally, those two things help me understand and learn topics the best since they are very easy to follow and sometimes can be entertaining.