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.