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.

AP world project - Importance of Chapter 26

Sabrina, Bobby and I did a nice little powerpoint on the importance of the chapter for chapter 26:) hope you enjoy it !

Here's the link :

https://docs.google.com/presentation/pub?id=1AjL5Ugkrmz275quNBWVGvUhuBzoE-4r16ukPZP70o_M&start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000

Capitalism- After reading the book

After reading about capitalism in the textbook, I definitely gained a lot more knowledge about the logistics behind it. Before reading, if we are being completely honest,the  things we talked about in class along with my VERY little preliminary knowledge on this topic, amounted to a very confused and cynical Nadia. But I think I kinda understand the system more now. In the book, the definition of capitalism is summarized as an economic system in which private parties make their goods and services available on a free market and seek to take advantage of market conditions in order to profit. This helped me comprehend that the whole idea behind capitalism is that each individual makes their own version of a business and makes their specialized goods available to the free market and sells them. The only catch is, each business has to compete with rival businesses with similar goods and therefore, prices decrease and the only way to make profit is to establish a business with the cheapest prices out of all the competition, but also at the same time have quality goods to make the most profit.

                In addition to this, I learned that capitalism definitely facilitated trade for Europe and increased its relations with distant lands like Russia, which in turn, boosted the economy. When it comes to how this system fit in with the rest of society, this is what I extracted from the book. It seemed that the government definitely favored this system more than the church did because it conflicted with religion by promoting greedy behavior and wrong morals, leading to violent social unrest from those who did not comply with capitalism. Also, it seemed like this system used the lower classes of serfs and peasants to build its profit and prestige. It used the advantage of having “cheap labor” to do all the work behind the scenes; so by underpaying these individuals, there was less money being wasted on the actual making of the product, resulting in higher revenues for the businesses.

Christianity and Capitalism

               I think that Christianity keeps splitting up into many forms because, first of all, it is one of the most dominant and prevelent religions in the world and has been spread across oceans and vast regions of land to reach new societies who have adapted it according to their own likes and dislikes and culture. It kinda reflects the game that we used to play when we were children: "telephone". With this game, you would whisper something in your friends ear and pass it down a long chain of people, but by the end, the original message would be altered and modified, just like what happened to christianity after being spread to so many new regions with new people. The main ideas mostly stayed constant, but certain aspects of the religion were tweeked to suite different cultures and soceities. Also, church and state sometimes got mixed up in history, often when one or the other became too powerful. This could have caused some disregard and ignorance to maintaing the religion as its original form in order for these constant competeing parts of society to try and out-shine the other.
           Ummmm, if we are being honost here I don't really know what capatilism means.... The only thing I remember is Mr. Carr saying that it had to do with free market or something like that but I could be wrong! Last year history is a complete haze to me so don't hold me to that definition lol...

Show me

http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=gKj58HQ

The Griots

The Griots preserved and passed down history in a different way than we are used to. Instead of writing down historical facts like most societies, they passed their history orally. After analyzing the pros and cons of orally preserving history vs. writing it down, I’d have to say that having scribes to record important dates and historical events is much more accurate and efficient and gets rid of any discrepancies that could potentially arise if history continued to get passed down orally.

The pros of passing down history orally is that is involves the culture and people more directly with history. By adapting facts into songs and lyrics that can be easily remembered and almost “fun” to learn, history all of a sudden goes from boring to interesting (no offense lol). With textbooks, people become easily disengaged from the information because it tends to become tedious after a while, while songs and lyrics spice things up and make the society more actively interested in the history.

The cons of passing down history orally is that some facts, after being passed down from generation to generation, can gradually become more of a fabrication, rather than iron-clad, true history. By committing to oral communication, the Griots were accepting the idea to trust their people and rely 100% on the fact that they will not exaggerate, forget, or make up any part of any fact…ever. That’s a bit farfetched if you ask me. Obviously, counting on people this much is bound to result in some sort of discrepancies like a forgotten fact, a hyperbole, or just overall wrong facts that someone could have made up and claimed was true. In addition to this, if a Griot died, and never had the chance to tell and spread their facts/stories with others, guess what? Those stories/facts die with them and poof, significant historical facts are lost in a flash. As much as I HATE Traditions and Encounters, I have to admit, it is a much more credible, reliable, and accurate source of information for history rather than asking Billy Bob Jr what he remembers hearing from George two decades ago. At the end of a day, having a scribe record important events in history is the best way to preserve that history for many years to come.

Mongol Trial

                Overall, I really enjoyed this project. In my opinion, this project was a little bit harder for me because I’ve always been a nervous person when it comes to oral presentations or talking in front of people, but I was really impressed with myself. I managed to get up there, and although my voice was a bit shaky at first… I pulled it together and became much more confident and relaxed as it progressed and used a lot of historical evidence to back up my story! I was really happy with the way I presented my case as TWO witnesses, which wasn’t easy : ( but I have no regrets with my testimonies. However, what I do regret is the first cross-examination with Subedei because, I have to admit, it was sort of nerve-racking and although I held up my case, Billy proved some really good points. My second cross-examination went over a lot better and I think my responses helped our case regain some credibility, and I was sort of proud of myself with my whole, “ I WAS DEAD” comment : ). I was also extremely pleased with my team. Everyone did AWESOME! Sabrina’s statement was convincing, Mark and Nick did a good job at stumping the opposing witnesses, and my fellow witnesses did a good job at helping the defense.

                I came to a decision that I honestly think the Mongols were not horrible monster, in fact, I thought they were more along the lines of typical empire builders. Any empire and its leaders take risks and engage in wars in order to gain land and expand their growing society, it’s just the way things worked back then. It was inevitable. Yes, the Mongols did kill many in order to achieve their aspirations, but so did the Persians, Greeks, Romans and so on. They were aggressive and relentless, but also reasonable and fair at the same time. They never surprised attacked anyone, they used diplomatic approaches, civil interactions, and benevolent leadership to enlarge their empire.

                Completely disregarding the trial as a whole, I do not think the Mongols are guilty of the crimes of genocide, kidnapping, and terrorism. Although I’m generalizing a bit, these things are bound to happen during a state of war and it wasn’t just the Mongols who did it. I thought they proved themselves to be fair and humane leaders who did not persecute any racial group  and they were understanding of those who they conquered. Yes they killed, but they never did so without reason, provocation, or after genuinely attempting to attain diplomatic relations prior to the killing.

Genghis Khan – Psychopath or Passionate leader?

Genghis Khan was definitely a man of multiple personalities. He proved himself quite capable of creating a massive land empire, but at the same time, made people question whether or not he was mentally stable. On one hand, it is clear to see the compassionate side of Khan during certain situations throughout his lifetime. For example, whoever deemed that Genghis was a sociopath was definitely delusional because claiming he was antisocial is completely false. First of all, he was able to maintain a very tight relationship with his best friend, Jamuka. Also, when his wife went missing, Khan was so depressed and distraught that he sent out thousands of men in a desperate search for his wife. A man of zero emotion would not have gone to that extent to uncover where his wife had disappeared to if he, in fact, did not care. He did show affection towards women and their children…for the most part lol. And plus, at the end of the day, most rulers that we have studied in history share one common interest; conquest and expansion of their empires. Any leader will be relentless and ruthless when it comes to how they achieve that, as long as they are able to sustain control and conquer neighboring territories as effectively as possible. In addition to this, some of Genghis’s behavior is justified by his childhood, seeing as how his father died when he was very young, and he had to cope with his half-brothers/sisters, which was clearly at time difficult because the family had to fend for itself. He kinda grew up in an environment which taught “every man for himself” ethics.

                On the flip side, he ended up ordering the execution of his “best friend” Jamuka…guess that friendship definitely experienced some roadbumps. He also killed his half-brother for stealing his fish when he was younger…clearly he was a killer in the making. He showed no real limits when it came to killing everything and everyone that got in the way of his goal to expand his territory and reign, but I guess that was beneficial in some ways too. Overall, I don’t think Genghis khan was a psychopath, but he most definitely was materialistic and had an obscene amount of avarice for conquest.

Link to My Project and the Bibliography!

Ok here it is, the link to my project is :

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Muslims-React-to-the-Medieval-European-Crusades/346313748712162?sk=wall&filter=1

^ make sure you scroll all the way to the bottom first and work your way up! And make sure the setting is under "Everyone (Most Recent)" So you can see everything!

Bibliography

1.      Rickard, J.. "Third Crusade, 1189-1192." . N.p., 20 April 2007. Web. 12 Jan 2012. .

2.      Myers , P.V.N. (2007, November). The crusades. Web. 12 Jan 2012.  Retrieved from http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-crusades.htm

3.      Wikipedia. (2010, April 2). Fifth crusade. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Crusade

4.      Joax. (2008, November 29). The fifth crusade. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.medievality.com/fifth-crusade.html

5.      Williams, Y. (2010, April 8). The fifth crusade (1217-1221). Web. 12 Jan 2012.  Retrieved from http://www.unexplainable.net/Religion/Fifth-Crusade-1217-to-1221.shtml

6.      Fletcher, Richard. (2011, October 2). The crusades. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/The_Crusades

Final Thoughts

My projects all done and I feel really good about it! Eveything went as planned, and my project turned out exactly like I wanted it to. It's really cool because its just a facebook page that I had three fake Muslims comment on different questions, surveys, and pictures that I posted about.

Crusades Project ...Final Day

Wahhoooooo!!! Almost done! All that's left to do is the bibliography and the last crusade post on my facebook page. I think so far my project has gone really well. At first, I thought that having too much freedom with this project and not having a lot of guidelines would be difficult, but I actually came to really like the creative options I had when it came to designing my project. For once I didn't do things by the book, and I actually let my imagination lead to way. But anyway, I collaborated with a bunch of people and I found it super helpful using the websites suggested to me by other classmates because it provided me with information that I had failed to find on my own time!

Collaboration and more ideas about the project..

I've decided that the best way for me to collaborate with my classmates will be to comment on their blogs with certain websites that I found super helpful when it came to researching the crusades. I have a series of links that I definitely think will be helpful so I plan on commenting on Alison Pflanz, Julia Roberto, and Mark Steinbach's blogs with my websites in hopes that they'll return the favor! Also, my facebook idea has been going well so far, it was just a bit of a pain to have to make 3 fake emails and facebooks and having to log out and log in every time I want a different person to post something. Other than that, I think I'm on a great start to completing this project!

Finding the Information and The Outline for my project

Even though it is old-school, I ended up using google as my main search engine. I tried out "sweetsearch.com" but, to be honost, I didn't really care for it much. Google and Bing became my two most used search engines when it came to finding information on the crusades. I did not have trouble finding information on the first, third, and fourth crusades, but there was definitely less information provided regarding the fifth.
For this project, I have created my own Facebook page and three different, fake "Muslim" facebook user accounts under different names. I plan on posting each persons different responses to the crusades this way, and maybe even uploading a picture/diagram here or there!

Outline for the Crusade Project

So after fully completing my project's research on the crusades, I have decided that I am going to do the first, third, fourth, and fifth crusades. I chose the first one because it is really the only truely sucessful crusade in which they are able to capture Jerusalem but there are also interesting details in how they got to that point, including Peter the Hermit's untrained ragtag army.  The third crusade seemed interesting because the Muslims are able to retrieve Jerusalem with the help of Saladin and disunite the crusades a bit. I picked the fourth crusade because it includes the ruthless sack of Constantinople. Lastly, I liked the fifth crusade because they attacked Egypt, which definitely sparked some hostile attitudes among the Muslims.