Jeopardy trends

When I was went over the jeapody game today during my study,I realized that there was a repeating pattern in certain topics and categories that I kept getting wrong or confused on. Whenever there were questions about certain people and putting a name to a description, I definitely noticed some difficulty that I was having. Tonight I am going to focus on memorizing names. Also, as I was trying to answer the questions on political structure, I thought I knew most of the answers, but I realized that I did not know enough of the specifics and is should go over this again this section. Other than those two topics, things like demography and social structure were my my high points and I knew way more than I anticipated about both. The essay we wrote in class helped me out with demography about China and India. I knew a lot about social structure too because I remember our class discussions about things like foot binding and the patriarchal society prevalent in many societies. The jeopardy game was very helpful because it showed me which topics I need to focus more keenly on tonight as I study.

Monasteries - centers of education and religion

Benedict’s Rule

4. Monasteries that kept to Benedíct’s Rule could be considered very useful institutions because of various reasons.  First of all, these monasteries were the backbone holding together the society because it provided a sense of unity amongst the people. It was very effective in that it gave most people values and morals to fall back on by proposing that a certain lifestyle will help you reach salvation. For example, the Rule states that, “Not to wish to be called holy before one is so: but to be holy, that one may be truly so called.” Also, it became obvious that their main reason of existence was to facilitate learning and provide guidelines of a religion to follow and provide people with a route they should take in life to pass judgment day and go to heaven, achieving a better and more pleasant life than the difficult one they had to endure on earth. By telling people to be modest, not gluttonous, and hate no man, Benedict’s Rule was trying to train the people to becoming better individuals while also instilling academics within the kids, which made more of the population literate. This definitely opened doors for the society to be able to communicate more effectively with neighboring civilizations, keep records, and have more scribes to keep track of major historical occurrences.

5. The Rule reveals much about the social and economic structure of that time period. After reading through all the rules, it caught my attention that people were using the monastery not only for education and religion, but also looked at it for the guidance on how to run the society. This makes me believe that a strong, centralized, imperial government was probably lacking during this time because the guidelines in Benedict’s Rule are SO strict and intricate that it seemed like either you follow it or you don’t. If you don’t, that basically means you are a misfit, are going against everyone else, and are going to lack a sense of unity that the other followers now have. Also, it becomes prevalent that teachers were very much looked up to and honored as people of hierarchy because they were the people who taught the monks and instilled all of the strict values within them. After reading the section called, “Of the Daily Manual Labour,” which said, “From the Calends of October until the beginning of Lent let the brethren devote themselves to reading till the end of the second hour. At the second hour let Terce be said, after which they shall all labour at their appointed work until None.” This makes it very obvious that the followers were told to work on the fields and help out with the agricultural production, which helped with trade and providing for monks(who ate very little). These reasons lead me to believe that monasteries proved themselves not only to be centers of religion, but also provide the unity and guidance that the lacking centralized government would have given.

Indian poems

I liked these poems because they were very reflective on the Indian society and gave a first hand look and perspective of native Indian people. I thought it portrayed the Indian culture well because it talks about the gods and the Indian caste system.

Tang and Song Poetry :)

              Tang poetry and Song poetry have very different structures and are based upon different topics, but are also similar in many ways. Tang poetry is definitely more focused on simplicity and consisting of poems that not necessarily have a crucial moral or meaning, but that revolve around a simple topic, like being drunk while gazing at the moon, as Li Bai describes in his poem. I dislike this kind of poetry because, quite frankly, I find it sort of pointless. Most of the poems are focused on ideas like love, friendship, and nature, oh yah….and alcohol. These poems seem like something someone would memorize or just read in monotone, not what poetry should really be like, in my opinion. I love poetry and I just did not think that these poets did a good job at doing poems justice, which is wrong to say because, technically, poetry is about expressing oneself freely, however one may wish.. so basically, I'm a hypocrite.

                The Song poetry, on the other hand, definitely incorporates more emotion throughout their poetry. It had more of a sing-song feel to it with more rhymes and, at points, seemed more energetic than the Tang poetry. I really loved the poem, “Song by the River, “by Su Shi because it was a very romantic poem that would definitely be relatable to many young lovers or hopeless romantics out there. It almost reminded me of lyrics from Taylor Swift songs (MY FAVORITE), except more ancient and less clever and catchy. (But I don’t blame them because it’s hard to live up to her J). Both the Tang and Song poetry portray alcohol as an obvious factor in their poetry and both use nature, like the moon especially, a lot within their writings. I definitely preferred Song poetry because I thought that it had more meaning and substance than that of the Tang and I thought that both of these societies were well reflected by the Poets of their civilizations.

Expansion of Islam

This is the link to my map! Show me was being annoying so when I tried to add more stuff on it it wouldn't save but I'll show you the little change I made to it in class tomorrow!

Link : http://www.showme.com/sh/?i=92166

Prince Vladimir v. Constantine's conversions

Prince Vladimir of Kiev and Constantinople both used their power in government to popularize their conversions to different religions. Prince Vladimir’s decided to concert to Orthodox Christianity around 989 and made it mandatory for his people to do as he did. Interestingly enough, he was not the best person to idolize due to his lack of appropriate behaviors. According to reports, Prince Vladimir definitely had an affinity for some Bud-Lights here and there and also kept a harem of hundred of girls, not exactly the type of person I’d want to look up to. Although he wasn’t the most morally strict human on the planet, his conversion cause Byzantine influences to spread hastily throughout most of Russia. Byzantine culture and religion were advocated in these distant lands because Byzantine teachers founded schools in the north and priests also went around promoting the religion.  Prince Vladimir did not like Judaism or Islam and therefore sponsored Orthodox Christianity and, over time, the Russian Orthodox Church grew and so did the influence of the Byzantine culture.

In 312, Constantine sparked a different conversion earlier in history when he experienced a vision which impressed him upon the power of the Christian God who assisted him in defeating his rivals. Therefore, he established the Edict of Milan, allowing Christians from the Roman Empire the freedom to practice their faith openly. He converted to Christianity, and later around 380 C.E., Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Both Prince Vladimir of Kiev and Constantine, the sole Roman emperor, definitely used their high positions in society and government as a way to cause their subjects to covert along with them. This, in the end, made these conversions monumental because it had a huge impact on society by spreading different cultures into more distant lands. Priests, teachers, and missionaries acted as an aid to both conversions because they advocated the religions in lands where the rulers had less control over there people.

The Byzantine Empire Architecture

After observing and analyzing the Byzantine Empire’s architecture I made note of several trends that became apparent after looking at the images. First of all, it becomes evident that they focused much of what they built based religion. There Christian roots shined through because Jesus and various disciples were illustrated in the background along with crosses multiple times, most of time it appeared as though they were praying. Also, domes became a recurring architectural structure throughout the Byzantine Empire because the pictures show many domes on top of buildings. Buildings were also depicted as if they were stretched within vicinity of the sky, giving the architecture a heavenly feel because its connection with God was close, literally. In addition to this, bright colors were clearly the shades of choice for the Byzantine Empire because they caught attention very easily and even, the colors like red resemble power, wealth, and also control. These colors made this type of architecture distinctive because it was so eye catching. Also, the Byzantine Empire obviously felt a need to flaunt their wealth by showing it through the extravagant decorations within the interior of buildings and did not appreciate simplicity or the whole “less is more” idea when embellishing their buildings. Mosaics were very popular and common along with massive walls that occupied a large amount of the Byzantine architecture.  I think that their architecture, although seems like it was mostly focused on being decorative and beautiful, it also served purpose and was functional to them because they were useful. All these aspects definitely made this type of architecture different from that of other societies.

                I feel as though in some ways the Byzantine Empire’s architecture is reflected in American architecture, however only in certain places. The dome feature of the Byzantine Empire is repeated throughout the United States, especially in some of the government offices like the Massachusetts State House located right here in Boston. It has a giant gold dome resting on the top of the building, which tourists are always immediately astonished by, which the Byzantine people always tried to accomplish by making their buildings overly lavish. Also, within more religious places like churches, Americans use the same decorating techniques and mosaics to depict Jesus and cover the walls. On the other hand, Americans sometimes prefer simpler and more functional architecture to build like their homes that’s main purpose is more focused on serving a use instead of just being eye-appealing.

Analyzing the credibility of different sources of evidence

Document 1 was written by Benjamin from Tudela, who describes what he sees and experiences as a traveler throughout the city of Constantinople. After reading all of the different evidences provided in this chapter, this document was the most credible because it is not biased at all, unlike most of the others. It is merely a collection of the author’s observations. It had a more impartial outlook than the other passages. I think that he wrote this as either a journal entry or it was part of some sort of diary.

Document 2 was written by Robert of Clari who makes it quite evident that he is a supporter of Constantinople and repeatedly advocates the city and its positive attributions. It talks about the extravagant palaces, riches, and churches that Constantinople has and the beauty of the city. I think that the author meant this document to be as another entry in a journal that a normal tourist would have kept and written in habitually.

Document 3 is written by Nicetas Chroniates who writes about the Latin’s new method of plundering Constantinople with a series of historical recordings what had occurred. It is very obvious that Chroniates did not have an affinity for these Latin people and looked down upon them. I think he probably wrote this passage for a rival, adversary, or enemy of the Latin people or just as a historical recollection that consisted of a biased point of view.

Document 4 portrays an illustrated map of Constantinople and how the magnificent city was enclosed by a wall that served as a protective barrier. I think that it was used not only as a map which showed off Constantinople’s wealth and beauty, but also as a way for other people to know where, in relation to other societies, this city was located and ways to make routes to get there or leave there.

Document 5 is a picture that depicts the interior of Saint Sophia, which is a beautiful, elegant, well-built, and decorated building. I think that is purpose was to be a beautiful work of art that exemplified the beauty or ornate structure of the church.

Document 6 was written by George Acropolites and it discussed the Thanksgiving celebration and religious holidays/traditions of Constantinople. I think it could have possibly just been written in a journal or diary as a way to describe the impact religion had on this particular society.

Document 7 was written by Chrysobull who talked about the trade that occurred between Constantinople and other cities. It displays a positive opinion on Constantinople because it portrays the city as very munificent to other societies. I think that the author was definitely from Constantinople and was advocating the city and its trade as a way to tune in the public to the successfulness of this city’s interactions with others.

The Silk Road Project

I thought that this project on the Silk Road was actually a very cool project because although it was very time consuming, I learned basically everything there is to know about the Silk Road. I thought that the research portion of the project went exceptionally well because the book was very helpful and had an in-depth portion which made everything a lot clearer. Also, Wikipanion proved to be a very beneficial source. In addition to this, the way we decided to organize our map went very well because everything was grouped based on empires and the way certain products, diseases, and religions flowed throughout the Silk Road. Making our map to scale and labeling every section of the map with physical barriers and oceans came out great on our map and everything was easily distinguishable. Lastly, our map turned out to be very eye-appealing and colorful which I was definitely excited about! On the other hand, I wasn’t really happy with how we were limited for time because of the power outage!! It became very tiring trying to draw and write in the candle light (even though our Yankee candles were smelt amazing).  Also, I was a bit annoyed with the ridiculous amount of time it required to make it perfect and draw in every last detail. I was a bit hesitant to trust the information from wikipanion because I wasn’t able to completely confide in the information since random people could have edited it. At times, it became frustrating to try and fit all of the information on the map because there was so much to describe about how things flowed and which empires did what, so at times we had to try and cram every last word in. Lastly, our poster might have become a bit hard to follow because of arrows pointing to different descriptions so I wish we had made it a little more clear.

 It was definitely difficult to do this project in the pitch black and also trying to schedule time with my partner that could work for the both us because I had work and Sabrina had practice during certain hours. My collaboration with Sabrina was a success because we both are hard-working individuals and perfectionists so we understood one another. Also, we live literally within one minute of each other since we are neighbors so we can get together very easily and asking for rides wasn’t difficult because I could just walk over when I needed to, which was very convenient.  If I had to do this project again, I would probably have focused less on trying to cram every possible detail onto the map because doing that was overly time-consuming and partially unnecessary! L Other than this, I thought that our project was great and I am really proud of what we created.

Moral Teachings of Jesus compared with other views

Zoroastrian vs. Jesus-

Similarities :

1.      both believed in one universal god

2.      both believed that being benevolent and being a good person would ensure one’s happiness and the fate of their futures

3.      both believe in afterlives

4.     both believe that people must be kindhearted, honest, and righteous in order to avoid conflicts to arise

Differences:

1.      Zoroastrians believed that Ahura Mazda existed who represented goodness, purity, and light but also Ahriman existed which represented evil and darkness

2.     Zoroastrians believed in good vs. evil while Jesus taught that everyone should be kind to each other no matter what

3.     Zoroastrians believed in a duality in their religion

Confucian vs. Jesus

Similarities:

1.      Both believed that having good social conduct, having just societies and being sincere to one another was key in life

2.     Jesus and Confucius taught that regardless of how nasty someone is treating you, you should always treat someone the way you want to be treated and never purposely be hurtful towards another person

3.     Both taught that being gentlemen to peers and resisting evil or the “eye for an eye” theory

Differences:

1.      Both of these religions are very much alike to the point where there isn’t much of a difference between the core moral teachings each offers except for the fact that Jesus taught that there was some people who exist and don’t abide by his rules, but Confucius taught that everyone was perfect in their own way regardless

Daoist vs. Jesus:

Similarities:

1.      Both agreed that good conduct would result in a rewards like better health and long lives

2.     Both wanted people to be less focused on the material world like money and power and more focused on bettering themselves as individuals and creating a more ordered universe

Differences:

1.      Daoists wanted their people to avoid earthly things and follow the “way”

2.     Daoists wanted their people to live in harmony with the Tao and nature and believed that all is one

3.     Daoists believed that people who had bad conduct would be punished with death, disease, and suffering in the afterlife

4.     Daoists number one hope was to be immortal, while Jesus wanted the people more focused on doing good deeds and treating others with respect and kindness

Buddhist vs. Jesus

Similarities:

1.      Both believed that doing things like killing, stealing, lying, and other bad behavior was inappropriate

2.     Both believed that self-control was important because people should be able to contain themselves even when they are upset at someone. People should be able to handle their emotions so they can react to occasions with more pleasant attitudes

3.     Believed that too much indulgence in the material world was unnecessary and people should be focused on more important things like being good Sumaritans

Differences:

1.      Buddhists wanted their people to focus a lot on self-reflection and make personal salvation as their number one goal in life

2.     Buddhists wanted to escape the cycle of incarnation and built caste systems based on social standings while Jesus believed that everyone should be treated fairly and kindly instead of being ranked

Hindu vs. Jesus:

Similarities:

1.      Both wanted their people to live honorable lives and pay more attention to being pure individuals who please God and his desire for benevolent individuals, and less attention to the material world

Differences:

1.      Hindus wanted their people to escape the cycle of incarnation and promised salvation to those who participated actively in trying to fulfill their caste responsibilities.

2.     Hindus were very focused on the fact that every person in a caste had the obligation to perform their duties faithfully, not because they were concerned about the consequences or rewards that would come with it while Jesus taught people to not segregate from each other based on class but rather help each other out when someone is in need of help

3.     Hindus believed that a balance of laws, economic well-being, and pleasure would lead to the salvation of souls while Jesus thought that being a good person would lead to salvation

Socrates vs. Jesus:

Similarities:

1.      Both wanted their people to strive for personal integrity

2.     Reflect on the purposes and goals of life ( being good people, performing good deeds, having no enemies)

3.     Both believed in an afterlife for those who were good people

Differences:

1.      Socrates questioned many things and was always wondering about why things were the way they were while Jesus already knew the guidelines his people should follow and how they should act

Why are empires formed?

                Empires form when a leader sees an opportunity to expand their civilization over more land and spread their control over more people. They are fully dependent on the successfulness of their leaders and the people making them up, so avoiding rebellions or cynicism within an empire is a serious issue. Rome had many difficulties at first because the average people there believed that the upper classes were abusing their power and causing the lower classes to suffer at their expense. During this time of displeasure, Julius Caesar arose and became more popular and gained support from the people of Rome. Because he was able to so easily gain the advocate himself and gain support, his army became very successful and was able to conquer new territories without many problems. After some time, a standardization of laws gave Rome some political stability and gave them an advantage over other civilizations.  China had a flourishing empire because the Han dynasty was able to completely disregard any threats like the Xiongnu because instead of being intimidated by them, they rose up to the challenge and conquered anyone who dared question their power.  Also, the Qin dynasty helped get the support of farmers because rulers like Shang Yang were able to encourage the cultivation of land, which helped provide for the community. This allowed a growth in population which led to a growth in the empire as a whole allowing the army to expand and become stronger.

                India, on the other hand, was not as successful with its ventures to expand its empire. Chandragupta Maurya seized control following Alexander’s death and immediately tried to conquer lands all the way from the Deccan Plateau to the Hindu Kush Mountains. This posed as too much land too fast, which was not good because the empire was not quite ready enough to support and maintain that much land. In the end, empires form as a way for smaller societies to expand their culture, army, control, and gain more land to try and dominate more territories.

Wikipedia vs. Textbook

                After the activity we did on Friday in class, I had the opportunity to compare and contrast the information sources of the website Wikipedia versus the old-fashioned textbook. In my opinion, Wikipedia was definitely a clearer, more in depth and involved source of information. Any topic that you type in automatically brings up a page consisting of every possible bit of description for it. It is an organized website that separates the sections of information on a side bar and allows you to navigate quickly from section to section. It provides helpful images and also provides links to certain words that an average person would probably not understand to help you further comprehend the reading. It does not use difficult language or diction so it allows people of all levels of education to read and understand the text. In addition to this, it is an easily accessible website that can be obtained within the click of a button. The textbook, on the other hand, is a very boring and less exaggerated source of information. It does not provide the details and bulk of information that could be found on Wikipedia. Also, the book can sometimes physiologically seem more tedious than just looking something up on Wikipedia. Because the book has so many topics to cover, it does not focus too much of its time on one certain aspect and provides general information where as Wikipedia specializes in whatever specific topic you decide to research.

            Both of these sources of information provide adequate details and are great ways to research topics. The book is sometimes good when dealing with learning about vast amounts of info and more focusing on learning about bulks of things vs. Wikipedia is website that pinpoints certain researched topics and becomes very involved and sometimes excessive in its details. Overall, I would prefer a class based on the book over Wikipedia because although Wikipedia appears to have many pros, our AP world class is not based on learning every aspect of one miniscule topic. We are focused on learning immense amounts of information about hundreds of societies and just learning the main, important facts about civilizations. Also, the textbook has all the information in one book, is tangible, easy to take notes from, and take from place to place (and it’s not even close to as heavy as my AP bio book which is a plus!).

Comparing the ethical teachings of Zarathustra, Confucius, and the Caste System in India

            The reflections on the caste duties and the detachments in the Bhagavad Gita show similarities and differences when compared to the ethical teachings of Zarathustra and Confucius. This excerpt clearly portrayed the strictly structured social classes that were maintained in India and their duties to their society. It became very evident that following orders and participating in Battle was a key point for being a member of the kshatriya caste.  Hinduism taught its followers the importance of responsibility to one’s society and how if each caste contributes its duties, it would result with the society growing as a whole. This caste-based society shares similarities with Confucianism and the teachings of Zarathustra because all three’s main goal was to better their society, however each went about it differently. Confucius taught that individuals, who displayed virtue and benevolence, while also concentrating of self-improvement, were key to enhancing their society. In comparison, Zarathustra taught that individuals needed to have good morals in order to build a just society. In general, it seemed as though Confucianism and Zoroastrianism both were more focused on the individual as opposed to Hinduism, which focused on the entire society as a whole. Hinduism also wanted people to stop thinking about personal gain or reward, but instead do things that they thought would help their population and complete their duties to their castes, while Confucianism and Zoroastrianism cared more about being self-satisfied instead of worrying about everyone else.  In the end, although there were definitely differences among all three of these religions and ethical teachings of each, they all have the same initial goal, to make their societies as successful as possible.

How blogs should be graded.

                   I think that blogs should definitely be graded not based on length, but based on the information within them and the message they get across. My definition of blog is that it is an area where people have the ability to post their own thoughts and opinions on different topics freeley. Whether the person who composes the blog post has a lot to say or feels strongly about a certain issue and needs to write extensively to satisfy themselves, or if a person is concise and gets to their point directly is that person's own choice. As long as the post answers the question, provides examples to support it, and gets to the point I think that its length and structure are completely irrelevent. Also, punctuation and other grammatical mistakes should not be accounted for because the purpose of this blog isn't to scrutinize someone's english, but rather to express their opinions and thoughts on different things. I think that the grading system should be that a person who recieves a 3 should have a well-thought out blog with details and enough information to support and explain the question. A 2 should be rewarded to someone who has done a good job but lacked depth and relevance in their post, for example by not providing enough arguements to support their perspective. A 1 is given to someone who got off topic, did not answer the question completely, but did an OK job. 0 is for someone who did not do the blog at all or completely misinterpreted the question and wrote something with no relevance to the question itself.

China dynasty : Qin

I think that a leader doing these things it would enhance trade and cause the empire to become more unified because more people can communicate with the universal writing system. It causes the rulers to have more control over the people in their empire. This allowed the rulers to obtain unity within the vast empire and keep order while also expanding.

Relating the selections from The Analects to modern politics

             I chose the passage from Book III. 16 saying, “The Master said, “The gentleman understands what is moral, the small man understands what is profitable.” I chose this passage because it has a message that is clearly relatable to current and past modern politics. I think that this passage has great significance because what it is trying to convey is that respectable men make decisions and act according to their morals and doing what is right, while selfish and ignorant men act on things based on personal gain. All of the past government officials who were put into office in the United States were put there for a reason, because the majority of the American people confided in their politics and believed that they could trust these officials with successfully completing their duties to the country and citizens. Trust is the basis of our government, and if any one person’s mind is corrupted with notions that are concerned with anything other than what’s best for the country, there is a serious problem. Officials should never make decisions based on what they think would be most beneficiary to people like them, but instead should regard all different perspectives on this issue and do what’s morally right in the situation. For example, wealthy government officials who are better off than most middle-class Americans should not alter taxation laws so that they pay the same as someone with a much lower income, they should make the policy fair so that people who are better off contribute more than those who genuinely cannot afford to be paying the same amount as people who make more than double their annual salary.

            When I read this passage, an epic moment in U.S. history immediately was triggered within my thoughts. Instantly, I thought of the Watergate scandal revolving around our former President, Richard Nixon. This incident occurred in the 1970’s when five of Nixon-associated men were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters as a way to gather information in an attempt to re-elect Nixon as president. After proven guilty, it becomes obvious that Nixon was blinded by his own selfishness and greed to maintain the presidency so he lost all sense of right and wrong. He participated in an event that broke the law and was morally unjust because he thought that it would be profitable to him by helping win the election. This passage clearly dictates that, “a small man understands what is profitable,” which is exactly what Nixon proves to be. This scandal relates to this quote and I think that in modern-day politics, every official and President Obama need to decipher between their own needs and that of a country in order to gain the respect of the citizens and successfully run this country by become more selfless and focused on nationalism.

Alexander the Great

I think that Alexander of Macedonia deserves to be referred to as “the great” because he did so much within his short-lived career as a conqueror, military genius, and ruler of the Persian Empire. He knew exactly how to strategize plans to lead his men because he himself was a disciplined and optimistic leader. By 333 B.C.E, he was able to take over Ionia, Anatolia, then Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, some of which had presented themselves to be headstrong and powerful civilizations that only a man with Alexander’s will and grit would have been able to usurp. Before he miraculously conquered the Persian Empire, he took control of Pasargadae then burned an Archaemenid palace at Persepolis around 331 B.C.E. After claiming himself supreme ruler of the vast and powerful Persian Empire, Alexander did not stop there. His army went into India and traveled all the way past the Indus River into Punjab, overthrowing the local rulers within any civilization he pleased. Another great trait about Alexander was that he didn’t always just focus on expanding his empire. At times, he allowed his troops to relax and celebrate how far they had come, like they did in Susa in Mesopotamia instead of pursuing India. On top of the fact that he was an excellent conqueror, he also established many cities which came to serve as cultural centers, Ptolemies’ administrative headquarters, and bureaucratic centers. He was very skilled when it came to government managing like his idea to restrict his officers to marry Persian women, which would cause a ruling class consisting of Greek, Macedonian, and Persian ancestry. To this day, historians refer to the time when Alexander t came into control and his successors as the Hellenistic age because the Greek cultural traditions spread beyond Greece into a more immense world. After making this much of a difference by expanding and conquering so much, I think it is only fair, and even an understatement, to refer to this remarkable leader as Alexander the Great.