The Evolution Of Man - Posterous isnt working!!

I choose this photo which depicts the evolution of man because it shows not only my perspective of history in a metaphorical way, but also my opinion of how this class has been for me throughout the course of this year. The photo shows how our ancestors evolved from being apes to upright humans over the span of history. In my perspective, I think that this is a prime example of how civilizations and societies grow and develop overtime in a lot of the regions that we have covered this year. Many civilizations begin as small and rural societies but as urbanization, industry, population growth, trade, and agriculture all started to thrive and become more efficient, we see the small communities develop into urbanize, large, and booming cities which serve as the center of many empires. Eventually these empires begin to utilize the success of their cities and the wealth it has produced to support the creation of an army and strong government. These new advancements allow the expansion of empires in all directions. Just like the picture, humans began as less intelligent and capable creatures like apes and eventually began to adapt to their environments and evolved into more efficient, intellectual, and successful animals on earth. Just like Charles Darwin said, “survival of the fittest.” In both cases, empires that have all of the foundation, strong government, and resources become the ones that last the longest and humans developed into the creatures that were most likely be able to thrive on this planet in the conditions provided.

Now, I also thought that this picture was a perfect representation of how I evolved over the course of this year in the class that I began the year dreading the most everyday because I thought I was going to fail it and destroy my GPA (partly because you told us this would happen on the first day of school LOL). In all seriousness, sticking with the class was one of the best decisions because I managed to work my butt off and get progressively improving grades and it helped me learn how to manage my time more efficiently. It also gave me a taste of how college classes are going to be like in my upcoming years. I felt as though I have evolved as a student just how humans have evolved as apes. I came into this class failing all the tests and essays and I have left with getting 9’s and 80’s on tests. That is a crazy improvement and I clearly learned how to adapt to the class and your teaching habits and make the most of, what I consider, my most challenging class. I think that world history is all about taking something that has potential to grow and watching it evolve over the years as certain opportunities and obstacles come forth. The growth of man and cities in general is what shapes our history.

I though that the multiple choice section of this test was very easy. There was no real identifications or names or places that you had to memorize and regurgatate information. Therefore, I was able to use a lot of common sense when it came to the actual chosing of answers because it was pretty self explanatory. I thought that the DBQ was a little ridiculous since it was about cricket and i didnt know what cricket was LOL. But i honestly thought that i got a 9 on it because I did the expanded core and all of the requirements. The other two essay... Oh god. Well the first one I just completely didn't know the answer and the second one I made something up so hopefully I was able to come up with a good essay that will at least get me a 3. I felt really prepared for the test because I think that you did a good job at teaching us to focus on the main themes rather than the little details,which was definitely a helpful step. Cramming everything the night before was not a good idea, and if I could go back I would definitely have done that differently! But other than that, I think I honestly got a 4. I'm happy with the way it went but it was VERY draining. Compared to the AP bio exam , I felt as though this was  a piece of cake.

Manifestoooooooo

Pro’s and Con’s …

PRO’S:

1.       I thought that Mark and Engels idea on industrialization was definitely constructive because the Bourgeoisie is constantly expanding. Since they are always looking to take over a new group of people, they needed to make sure that the markets and societies that they were usurping were up to date and ready to go as a way to thrive.

2.       They bring up the fact that communists put the needs of the proletarians before everything else in many situations. I thought that this was again a positive aspect because the working class is being offered a substantial role in society in which they will be given a say in how things are being run.

3.       Mark and Engels also bring up the idea that people should not live in the past, instead, they should focus on the future. A communist society would definitely be a choice when thought of in the manner because they would be focusing on how to fix, innovate, and mitigate situations that would be beneficial for the future, rather than dwelling on negative things that might have occurred in the past.

4.       I also thought that their idea of the graduated income tax was a good idea because, in realty, is it fair to tax a farmer who makes far less than some wealthy landowner who wouldn’t have to pay as much, if any? Not really. I think that this idea is good because it makes the entire system of taxation a whole lot fairer by taxing people based on how much they make.

CON’S

1.       Mark and Engels said that they want to eliminate the property of the bourgeois which will most likely result in nothing but a giant outburst and probably rebellion. This group is one of the most powerful in the area who are clearly going to have means to rebel with, and provoking them is only giving them the incentive to use these means, which could lead to chaos and destruction.

2.       The ten demands written are very biased towards the working class, and subsequently, completely bash and do nothing in the favor of the upper class. Obviously, this was not a smart decision by Mark and Engels because these aren’t going to pass since they are going to get zero approval by anyone in the Bourgoisie since these 10 demands are depriving the upper class of all the advantages they initially had. This is going to trigger a rebellion and chaos, also.

3.       Also, children are put at a disadvantage from this passage because they are being told that they will not be able to choose what they want to do in life when they become older and are looking for careers. It is unfair to expect all children to grow up under the direction of whatever the state assigns them to becoming. This is depriving so many of our youth from being able to explore their interests and following their hearts!

4.       "The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at." This quote that I found also clearly shows how their hatred toward the bourgeois, but more importantly, is showing that these people who are trying to fix things, are only going to end up causing more problems. Their hatred is getting in the way of the big picture: if they want to take away these people’s independence, what kind of a government are they planning on creating? Because clearly, it is not an equal or fair, and in fact, is not going to be successful because in order for a government to work, everyone has to be content with it. At the rate that these people are going, that’s definitely not happening any time soon.

Heroes

                In all four of these paintings, there were many similarities that I noticed after examining them thoroughly. In the first painting, George Washington comes off as a cordial, welcoming individual since his arm is fanned out and the colors around him with the books make him seem scholarly and knowledgeable. In the other paintings, Touissaint appears to be on some sort of mission, Marat is lying dead in a bath tub after a stab wound, and Bolivar is pretentiously posing. In all four paintings, some more than others however, we see a similarity in how the heroes are portrayed as strong, intelligent, determined, and revered individuals who clearly had a lot of power and control. Also, we see the recurring theme of three of the leaders with some sort of weapon, like a sword, in the hands, which makes the leader appear far more intimidating and authoritative since they clearly have a weapon which could easily harm people who stand in their way. Marat, the only one without the weapon, is holding onto his pen and paper which offers a strong message about the dedicated and devoted individual he was when it came to playing a critical role in the revolution. All of these similarities are what cause these heroes to be depicted as essential parts to the revolution and make them seem as though they were all qualified for their positions.

                The artists definitely drew these leaders the way that they did because they wanted them to seem heroic and almost like ideal individuals who played a major part in shaping the world during the revolution. It makes these leaders seem like the perfect, well-rounded people who were desperately needed during this uneasy time. George Washington seems scholarly, friendly, and confident all at the same time in his picture, while Marat is depicted as a tragic hero who faced death but didn’t leave without making a statement. His pen and paper remained in his hand along with a smug look on his face, showing his dedication and devotion to trying to exploit those who did not coincide with the terms of the revolution. Bolivar and Touissaint are both portrayed as people who clearly have control over the land and are very intelligent when it comes to obtaining power and wealth in the most efficient ways. These paintings influence future generations to try and live up to the high standards set by these outstanding leaders from the past.

                Revolutions need heroic figures because in order to completely change a society for a specific matter, people like these leaders are necessary who aren’t afraid to stand up for what they believe in, rebel, take action, and take risks. Heroes are needed because they act like the voice of the people who are too intimidated to actually take action and try to make a change. The only way to change a way of life, is by having certain people dedicate their lives to trying and mitigate the situation by coming up with new and innovative solutions. Their actions are heroic about them because the decisions that people like them make end up influencing and affecting the lives of all the people around them. These are the people who obtain respect and power in society and therefore, these are the people others look up to for advice and direction. Their actions are crucial because when they are able to accomplish something helpful to the situation, their heroism prevails. The artists really capture the persons of these individuals as well, like their morals and personalities, while also depicting how scholarly and strong they are at the same time.

TED talks

I enjoyed Niall Ferguson’s speech about the great divergence of the east and west, but I did not necessarily agree with everything that he said. Also, I found that at time, I got lost and was confused, but I think I basically understood the jist of what he was trying to get across. He was trying to say that the West had an advantage by downloading apps because it hastened their prosper, however, at the same time, it also backfired in a way because they became more lazy and slowed their progress. This downfall allowed other countries to attempt to catch up to the West’s progress. Also, Ferguson’s idea that institutions helped the area thrive is very true. These institutions are what guide a civilization to success because if there are more innovations and new ideas that come up, that society is bound to grow and prosper as a whole. Although there were definitely parts of his argument that I did not agree with, I consider him an intellectual and wise source and, therefore, I would definitely consider investing my time in watching more of these TED talks (except probably not).

I Hate This Textbook and Global Interactions Blog Post ~

The authors choose to put the Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals together in chapter 28 because they probably assumed that integrating all these Islamic Empires together would be beneficial for the reader since he/she would be able to compare and contrast the different societies that had similar origins and religious backgrounds. In my opinion, I thought this was a very lousy way to go about organizing the chapter. It was extremely confusing at points to separate the different societies because it was all in one big jumble. By the end of the reading, I had to go back and take my own notes and separate them because when I finished reading, I had intertwined many of the facts amongst the Ottomans, Sadavids, and Mughals.

This period of global interactions was a good thing because, although many negative aspects came along with it inherently, the overall outcome was far more critical then the few missteps which occurred along the way. The negative aspects consist of the fact that slavery was promoted and advocated through trade and also, with the increased trade, many diseases were transmitted and spread from society to society. Besides this and a few other mishaps, global interactions were crucial in the development of the modern world because it helped improve trade and communication between Europe, America, and Africa. Transportation became more efficient, which helped facilitate trade and increase the amount of items and ideas that were being spread from all these different areas.

Fabian Fucan Rejects Christianity

Fabian Fucan uses various religions, cultural, historical, political, and social aspects to attack Christianity in the excerpt. At first he seems almost a little hypocritical when he reveals that he had studied Christianity for twenty years at first,  but now despises it. He refers to Christians as “barbarians” who he is ashamed that he followed earlier in his life. I also got the vibe that Fucan really respected Japan, seeing as he called it the “Land of the Gods.” He begins his argument by hating on the Christians for wanting to destroy the Law of Buddha and the Way of the Gods by forcing the adherents of Deus to weaken the Royal Sway and eliminating pre-existing Japanese customs by replacing them with their own as a way to try and usurp Japan. Fucan talks about how they have taken over other countries, like Luzon and Nova Hispania, because they were, “lands of barbarians with nature close to animal.” He glorifies the Japanese army by commending their “fierce bravery.” He has faith in the army and believes that even if the Christians try, they will be unsuccessful in trying to usurp Japan. He shows his disgust for Christians yet again by saying, “for the sake of their faith they caulue their lives less than trash, than garbage.” Clearly, we can tell that Fabian is a nationalist for Japan and does not want the Christians to spread into Japan because he is protective over the Japanese customs and culture that he does not want to be tainted by the Christians who seek to invade. He establishes the point that the Christians have history of usurping certain lands then subsequently altering the natives in their beliefs and customs so that they assimilate with them; a completely ridiculous thing to do according to Fabian. He puts Buddhism on a pedestal by basically saying that it is pure and clean and, basically, is a completely better choice of religion over Christianity.