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........
May 18, 2012
April 6, 2012
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:
4 negative/destructive things:
4 positive/constructive things:
- 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
- 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
- this is where it kind of ends.........
4 negative/destructive things:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
April 2, 2012
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.
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.
April 1, 2012
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.
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.
March 24, 2012
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.
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.
March 15, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)