The Prince

The Prince

For History class a few days ago, we came in having read a reading called the prince. It was a mans speech about what makes a good prince and a good leader. He brought up many different facts about the way people think and I thought those views were very interesting to think about.

In this speech by Machiavelli, the idea that a good ruler has to be mean was brought up a lot. We talked about this in class quite a bit too. Here are two examples of different types of rulers. One will be very nice to the people and give them things like money or no taxes. But eventually this ruler needs money so he stops giving it away and starts charging taxes on the people. This makes the people very angry because the ruler just switched on them so they begin to resent the ruler and actually start to hate him. Back then, the people hating their ruler could end in them killer him. The other type of ruler is the kind that starts out mean so that the people are scared of him and they don't really feel like he owes them anything, they haven't lost anything. They may resent things that this ruler does but at least they don't hate this ruler. So, according to this person, it is better to be a ruler that starts out mean from the very start, then a ruler that is nice but as the possibility to need something later on. I don't really think that this is the morale thing to do or the most virtuous of rulers but it is the way to be an effective ruler and have the people follow you.

I think that this way of rulering is the total opposite of Confucianism because Confucianism promotes the notion that a nice ruler will be a good example to make the people good too. Machiavelli's idea about good leaders is closer to Han Fei-Tzu's idea of a good leader, they both think that good leaders should be more on the mean and harsh side. But the difference between these two people's ideas is that Machiavelli thinks that if you are mean the people won't do anything that is bad, Han Fei-Tzu thinks that if the people will be bad regardless, so you need the punish them in return and this is the best way to teach them their lesson. So Machiavelli's way of leading thrives off of fear while Han Fei-Tzu's way is based off of learning lessons. So out of these two, to me Han Fei-Tzu's way is more moral them Machiavelli's way. I think this because at least with Han Fei-Tzu's way, the people doing the bad are learning a lesson and the leader doesn't have to be unnecessarily mean to the innocent people. So out of all of these way, I can see the reasoning behind all of them but I have to say that I think the one least likely to work is the Confucianism way because it is taking to big of a risk, what if the people are bad regardless? Then what would happen, the leader just say the same and keeps being nice to the people? That would only mean that the people would think that they could just do whatever they want because that is what the other people did and they got away with it. I can understand how the other two ways would work a lot more. I think that Machiavelli's way is also probably unlikely to work because it too is very risky because there is always going to be the people that aren't afraid to stand up against a mean ruler, people will get fed up eventually. So, I think that the best way is Han Fei-Tzu's way because it doesn't really leave any loopholes open.

PAPER for Confucianism Reading and Han Fei- Tzu Reading

In history class last week, we came in having read a reading about Confucius and Han Fei- Tzu. These reading were basically the views these two regarding government and how to be the best governor. They both had very different views, Confucius with more of a "for the people" type of government and Han Fei- Tzu with more of a "government for the government" type. Using a method that we learned in class called "Paper" we analyzed these primary sources with partners, mine being Ariel.

PAPER for Confucius Reading:


Purpose: The purpose is to explain how to govern in a way that is best for the people that will, in turn be best for the entire government. It also explains what a "good government" is.


Argument: Confucius is arguing that people should be able to have faith in their ruler and the ruler should be reasonable. This basically means that if the people are left to make their own decisions without restrictions, they will do the right thing because they won't need to rebel.

Presuppositions: Confucius is in the position of a teacher because he is pretty much telling people how to be a good governor. And also he knows that people reading and following his teachings believe him and what he says.

Epistemology: This document is probably somewhat true. Although, since it was a long time ago when these ideas developed and where taught, things could have changed. And also this is not a concrete document we have to rely on it being true.

Relate: This relates to Han Fei- Tzu's document about government because they both talk about government and ways to be a good governor.

PAPER for Han Fei- Tzu Reading:


Purpose: Han Fei- Tzu's purpose in this document is to tell people about his ideas about legalism and to deny Confucianism. Also, like Confucius, to teach people about his views on government.

Argument: His argument is saying that a good government should have full control of their people. This is an example of a "government for the government" not a "government for the people". Also, Han Fei-Tzu's version of a good government calls Confucianism naive.

Presuppositions: Han Fei-Tzu is in the upper-class ruling section and Confucius denies all that he believes, so people are starting to follow Confucius and that worries Han Fei-Tzu.

Epistemology: The ideas of Han Fei-Tzu are probably to the views of legalists in that era.

Relate: This relates to Pericles because the Athenian government was based a lot on fairness and equality but then cared more about making decisions in a way that was most efficient, not necessarily taking time to make the best decision for the people.

Questions From Class About Movie

In class on Friday, after we finished the movie about the Stasi, we were all put into groups and were given six questions to answer about the movie. The questions weren't facts about the movie but more just things that we can respond to regarding the movie. My group members were Ana and Danielle. The questions were as follows:


1.) Why do you believe the East German government felt the need to spy on the authors and play writes What problems did that create for the main characters in the film (Dreyman, Hauser…)?

We thought that the government was concerned that more cultured people who had more oppourtunities to express themselves, would expose negative beliefs about East Germany and the government. Also the government was insecure about itself, therefor they they needed to make sure that people weren't saying bad things about it. They people of the government were afraid that they would be overthrown because they didn't always make the right decisions that everyone in the country believed.

2.) Early in the film, one member of the Stasi refers to the group as the “shield and sword of the communist party.” What do you think this means? Does a government need a “shield and sword of the communist party?


My group thought that the shield stood for the government's defense while the sword is the government's attack weapon. The shield might be the Stasi agents and the surveillance systems that were installed in different people's houses. The sword could be the punishment or the jail that the people would go to if they were caught doing things against the government. SInce the communist party is not favored among all, the leaders of the government felt the need to have a "sword and shield" ready to protect their government.


3.) What rights does the government have to monitor its own people? Do you believe there are situations in which the government has the right to spy on its own citizens?


The government should only have the right to monitor it's people when many lives are in danger, they should not have the right to monitor its people to save themselves. That would not be in the best interest of the people, but the best interest for the government and that is not (or shouldn't be) what government is all about.

4.) Which character is the most ethically/moral? Which character do you feel is

the least ethical/moral? Why? 

My group thought that the least ethical character was Minister Hemf, he completely completely destroyed Christa- Maria's career which lead to her death. If it weren't for him, the Stasi wouldn't have had something against Christa- Maria to try and get out of her where the type writer was hidden. Weisler was probably the most ethical person (towards the end) because after learning about Dreyman's life he realized that these people who disagree with the government aren't bad people, they just have different views on things. Weisler saved Dreyman and his reputation.


5.) In what ways does the Stasi strengthen the East German government? Weaken it?

The Stasi weakens the government because it is not always good in the eyes of the people. The just see that they are not trusted and it gives them more of a reason to rebel and hate the government. The Stasi strengthens the government because it catches all the people that could potentially expose the government's flaws.


6.) Was the East German government an “effective government” ? What do you believe it means to be “an effective government”?


The East German government was effective because as in it arrested and caught people while keeping the government clean and it is a government that does what it wants to get done. But it wasn't effective in the eyes of the people. The government didn't always want that best interest for the people, but for themselves and some could argue that this makes them an ineffective government. So I guess that is was and it wasn't and effective government.

Das Leben der Anderen

Das Leben der Anderen or The Lives of Others (as it is called titled in English), is a movie that we have been watching in History class for the past three days. It is a movie about East Germany in 1984 but more specifically about the Stasi and a German writer. In East Germany during this time period the Stasi spied on people, specifically artists and writers, to make sure that they are loyal to the state. Writer and artists were the ones usually watched because they are able to make public statements through their art or literature and the Stasi don't want that so if the artists and writers do something they don't like they arrest them.
I thought this movie was very interesting because I didn't know very much about this and East Germany in the '80s. I didn't know anything about the Stasi so it was very fascinating learning about something I had no idea even existed. I want to work for the CIA when I grow up and by a secret agent but after seeing this movie I saw how what these spies were doing really effected people's lives in a huge way and how corrupt the government can be. I don't want to work for a corrupt government and I don't think that our government is bad but neither did the people who became part of the Stasi. When man, Wiesler, who was the one who spied on the writer, was just doing his job and what he thought was right but he was still made to look like the bad guy (although not at the end). Government and power can really fog your vision on your own morals and what is right and wrong. I also think that it was a good introduction to our government unit. The movie shows one form of government that I didn't know a lot about. I actually don't know very much about a lot of things that have to do with the government in foreign countries so I am very excited to start this unit.

Unit One Reflection: The Environmental Unit

I thought that this unit was very interesting because I pay a lot of attention to the environment and how I use it today. I know a lot about the environment today and who to treat the environment. I also know about the environment and how to keep it healthy for the future, but something that I didn't know very much about was environment in the past. Obviously because it is a history class we would be learning about past things and it was very cool to learn about the environment in the past and how it effected things back then. Looking at history through an environmental stand point is really interesting because we get to look at things in a different view, not just what happened, but what the environment had to do with what happened. In all of my old history classes, we talk about different time periods like ancient Greece, or World War II, this course is like none that I have ever taken because instead of learning about one time period, we are learning about one specific catagory, a specific theme (hence the name of the actual course: Themes in World History). This first unit has given me a taste of the way this course is going to work, with the different themes an all. I think that my view on the environment has changed over the course of this unit. I used to just think of the environment as the earth and trees and plants, just the natural things around us. Now I know that the environment is not just the trees and plants, but everything around us, from the buildings to the towns to the country, everything, that is why environment makes such an impact on peoples lives. I think that one of the most important things I got of this unit was something that kind of impacts me and life decisions. I learned that where you live and what is around you is what is going to impact your life and who you become. Now this might seem like something that everyone knows and I guess that I knew it all along but I was never actually thought about it, because I live in *******and go to school at ****** I get the opportunities that I have and that I am going to get. It is kind of a fate thing, like if you do something it will effect your whole life, it is freaky to think about.   And you if you made a different decision or changed your mind just once, it would change your whole life.

The Chicago Heat Wave: Summer of 1995

Last night for homework, we were assigned a reading about the chicago heat wave and today in class we discussed it. When our teacher asked us if any of us knew if our parents remembered the Chicago heat wave and some of the parents didn't even remember it. When I asked my mom, she said that she remembered it but the worst thing about it was the fact that it took a while to cool her car down at first. She said it was really hot but it never really effected her, she lived in Lincoln Park. It is interesting to hear two completely different sides of the same story, one side being my mother's and the other side being what we learned about in the reading and what we discussed in class today.


Something that we talked about in class today was the fact that in Illinois, over 600 people died (I can't remember the exact number) due to heat. In other states, the number of people that dies due to heat were around 20 or below, most didn't even have any deaths. This really says something important to me. In one of the clips we watched in class, someone brought up that Chicago even had a Catastrophe plan that wasn't followed through with soon enough. People were breaking fire hydrants to cool down, causing their neighbors to lose water pressure. This was also a major issue, but only in neighborhoods with a lot of people below the poverty line. These are the neighborhoods with the most deaths due to heat related causes. In the clips that we watched in class, the people talked about the temperature and it was getting up to 104˚, which is really hot but it didn't break the record nor should it cause any harm to people. But I think that one of the main reasons so many people died was because there was no water pressure. People need water to survive, it is a basic human need, but with no water, and when people lived far away from the lake, a lot of people can die from hydration and other heat related causes. Also, when the heat wave was first being introduced (meaning we watched a clip from the first day of the heat wave) not so many people were dying so the city of Chicago didn't regard the heat wave as a huge issue. But when we watched a video later on during the heat wave, everyone was freaking out because there was no water pressure and a ton of people were dying. By the time the attention was drawn to the problem and action was taken, it was too late to fully stop what was going on. So clearly Chicago had a plan for if something like this happened, but the way they carried through with the plan really does not reflect a good image on Chicago, and just showed that we don't really know what to do in a state of panic nor can we tell when there is a problem! Or at least can't tell if there is a problem until it is too late.

World War One

When you think about World War I, or any big war in general, you think of all the people who died, all the countries or regions or cities that were conquered. You think of all of this and you think of the damage this has done to the human race and the world, but what you don't think about when you think of war is the environmental issues, just what this war has done to the earth and your surroundings.

In class today, we talked about a resent reading in the online text book about Environment and the War. We talked about how World War I started from an environmental standpoint, about the build-up to the war and also about the actual war and what happened there. I think that if you asked someone in World War I what was the worst thing about being in the war, they would say their surroundings and the conditions of their living. At least it would be one of the worst things.

We talked about how wars can start just by countries making allies and treaties. Countries make allies and treaties with other countries because they think that one certain country is going to attack them. When one country adds an ally, the other country adds an ally, also in anticipation for the first country to attack. This is what happened to France and Germany. France thought Germany was going to attack them so they added allies. This made Germany think that France was going to attack them so they added allies. Eventually all of Europe was sided with one country or the other and if they weren't then they were in danger of getting invaded or attacked. They were just waiting for something to happen to start the war, because if one of the countries that was an ally with Germany or France was attacked or something happened all of the countries would have to start war. So basically, war can be made a threat purely through assumption. Assumption in the context of countries assuming that other countries are planning to attack them so they add allies. If one country with no allies attacked another country with no allies, then it wouldn't be a world war, it would only be a war between two countries. Something that I thought about and questioned was what if some of these countries had allies before they became allies with either France or Germany. If they did have allies before, then some alliances could over lap meaning if x country is allies with y country who is also an ally with z country and x country attacks z country, what will happen to y country? Would they have to side with one or the other or would they have to stay neutral? If this kind of thing happened in World War I, it would have been very complicated and I bet a lot of countries would have split apart or would have stayed out of the war altogether.  It all sounds very confusing but I don't even know if that kind of thing even happened.

How Great is Christopher Columbus Really??? And How Can Your Environment Effect Your Future?

In history class a few days ago, we discussed Christopher Columbus and the discovery of the Americas. We talked about Christopher Columbus himself and how he managed to come across America and how it is way more of a coincidence then most people think.

Christopher Columbus grew up in Italy, and when he was a young boy he was given several opportunities to sail ships and deliver things around the Mediterranean. These opportunities were given to him only because he lived in Italy and he lived on the shore. He became a really good boat sailor but he only had experience in the Mediterranean Sea, not in oceans with currents and tides. He thought that he could easily just sail to India because he was so good at sailing the Mediterranean. What he didn't know was that there were currents that would take him to a completely different place, the Americas. That is why the Native Americans were called Indians because Christopher Columbus thought that he was in India.  So is it really Christopher Columbus who gets the credit for "discovering" America? Or does the credit go to fate? Or the currents in the ocean? And also, Christopher Columbus would not have been the one to discover America if he hadn't lived where he did, because he got an opportunity to sail at a young age when most people didn't get that opportunity. Someone else would have discovered America, or it wouldn't have been discovered at all. 

That leads into the other part of my question, how can environment affect your future? I think that environment for sure effects your future a lot. Like, would Christopher Columbus have found America if he wasn't born in Italy? It is possible but very, VERY unlikely because he would not have been given the opportunities that he got. He might have done something else that made him famous but it would have most likely been something totally different. But location and environment doesn't create a brilliant mind, people are just born that way. Like if Steve Jobs wasn't born where he was and gotten adopted, would there be Apple? Maybe not but maybe it is fate because no matter what, Steve Jobs was born with the mind that he had and even location couldn't have changed that. So it all comes down to fate I guess, I think I talked about this in a previous blog but it still has relevance to this one. There is no way to know if it fate or not but I think that no matter where you are born, it is till possible to do anything if you were born to do it.

P.A.P.E.R. The Black Plague

Purpose: Giovanni Boccaccio (a historian from Florence, Italy) wrote this to sustain Florentine wellness and the document the spread, symptoms and effects of the Black Plaque in Florence, Italy.

Argument: The argument is to point out the devastation caused by the black plague in Florence. Also that people should feel sympathetic toward Florence and they should help to improve society as humanity is increasingly degrading.

Presuppositions: Back when this article was writen and when the Black Plague was an issue, the disease was really bad an whiped out a large chunk of Europe. If something like the Black Plague happened in modern times, it would not be as big of a deal because there are antibiotics that are used to cure and preveent such illnessess. But, if we didn't have an antibiotic for the Black Plague, it would spred a lot faster then it did back then because we have more forms of transportation and, especially in the city, we are around a lot more people.

Epistemology: Something that the author exaggerated was the fact the in Florence the Black Plague was the worst. This is not fully true because the Black Plague was all over Europe and it was teh same disease everywhere. Something that the authors says that is a fact is that the Black Plague did spread through Florence, Italy.

Laws of Manu and Black Plague

Yesterday in class, we were all put into groups of three and we rotated every ten minutes. In each group we were given a question regarding the Manu Law and different circumstances in modern and historic times. Here are my different groups responses:

Question 1, Danielle and Lyle: What laws of modern society are comparable to the laws of Manu? What do we do that conflicts with the spirit of the laws if Manu?
A Manu law states that you shouldn't do acts of violence but violence is a crime in modern times that is commonly committed. Also the government funds for building new things and facilities and this can also effect the environment and preserving the environment is a Manu Law.

Question 2, Chloe and Jack: To what extent might the laws of Manu have prevented the spread of the Plagues?
Manu laws stated that meat should not be eaten. Not eating meat would allow for cleanliness and animals can also carry diseases (e.i. mad cow disease) so not eating meat can prevent those diseases. So if Manu Laws were followed correctly, people wouldn't be getting diseases and plagues from animals. It is a good way to prevent disease. Hindus believed in living in unison with the environment and if this rule was broken there would be sever punishments.

Question 3, Brooke and Ana: What connections are there between disease and the need for balance between humans and their environment?
When you mistreat your environment (e.i. eating animals, cutting down trees) you create an unbalanced environment and you are more likely to get things like diseases (from eating animals) or erosion ( when cutting down trees). Littering is also something that create an unbalanced environment and pollute the air and this directly effects humans because it makes the air not fresh and dirty.


Question4, Chloe and Ariel: How did people respond to the black plague that only made things worse? To what extent have er improved the human response?
When the black plaque happened, people immediately fled from their current location to get away from the plague. Sometimes they didn't even know if they had the plague yet so instead of running away from it, they were just spreading it to increase the infected population. Also, the black plague was air-born which means that people can get it just by being around people who have it, even if they don't even have any physical contact. We now have antibiotics that are used and help to prevent diseases such as the black plague so people aren't as concerned with diseases such as that today.

Why Do People Move

A few days ago, Halloween actually so it was Monday, in history class we were asked the question, why do people move. We were told to write about this question for a few minutes and after we wrote down our thoughts, we discussed the question as a class. The question of why people move came up because we were discussing a reading that we recently finished about the Bantu language and migration. The Bantu people started out in modern day Nigeria but by the time their civilization ended, they were all the way down to South Africa. I thought that this was very interesting especially because their language for the most part remained even thought there were several different forms of it by the end of the their civilization. And also they had no idea where they were going, they just knew where they were, were they came directly from and that they needed to move. When we saw the map of their migration, they branched of from each other a few times but every single stopping place was at a water source. It would be really hard for them because they had no idea where they were going and they needed water and because they didn't know where they were going they didn't know if they would survive or when they would find water again. We talked about something called push/pull. This was explained as the push is the conditions that drive people out of their homes. And the pull if the part that causes and brings people to explore new areas. Since the Bantu people migrated so many times, they probably came across other civilizations. Since the Bantu people stayed intact until the reaches South Africa, this obviously means that all of the civilizations that they came across they defeated and the civilization joined them. The process of Diffusion is also something that was brought up. Diffusion is when societies are given the opportunity to pick and choose different aspects of many societies to make their own, greater society.

This is the response I came up with to the question:

 One reason that people may move is because their current location has a lack of sustainable resources. This can be a huge problem because without water and food, people can not survive. Another reason similar to the first is that they exhausted their resources. This is a more likely reason for people to move away because chances are if a place didn't have any access to food or water, they wouldn't have even chosen this location in the the first place. People might also be forced to move away because other civilizations or groups might defeat them. Also they might move because they think that another location will give them better opportunities for success in their life and career or if they are experiencing intolerance from other people. People also might move because they want to be closer to their family or maybe there is a famine that could drive them out of their current location. There are many reason that people might might move, they can choose to or they also might be forced to. Everyone has their reason and unless it was documented, it can be really hard to tell why they move.

Bibliography

1) House Passes Bipartisan Legislation to Speed Haiti's Earthquake Recovery. United States, Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/858458857?accountid=3360.

This site is a summary of the Haiti Economic Lift Program.


2)Press. "Haiti Massive Earthquake Exacerbates Nation's Economic, Environmental and Social Woes." Evansville Courier & Press (2007-Current), Jun 20, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/743849165?accountid=3360.


This article talks about the post- Duvalier period and the corrupt relationship between government officials and the economic ruling elite. 


3)Extension of Employment Authorization for Haitian F-1 Nonimmigrant Students Experiencing Severe Economic Hardship as a Direct Result of the January 12, 2010 Earthquake in Haiti. United States, Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc, 2011. http://search.proquest.com/docview/867541397?accountid=3360.


This article talks about citizens who are experiencing really bad economic hardships.


4) "EarthTalk: Haiti." Oakland Tribune, Jan 29, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/352446312?accountid=3360.


Talks about Haiti's problems (economic and others) before and after the earthquake.


5)CHF International Helps Haitians Clean Up Haiti and Replace Income with Cash for Work Program. United States, Washington: U.S. Newswire, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/450543014?accountid=3360.


This article explains how CHF International is helping Haiti get cleaned up and replace income with cash for workers.

Citations For Economy After Haiti Earthquake

1) Dougherty, Conor; Shwiff, Kathy, "Earthquake in Haiti: A Feeble Economy, Knocked Flat." Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2010, www.proquestk12.com

About how the Earthquake in Haiti creates a setback for the Haitian economy and how they have to emerge from the aftermath of lots of political insability and hurricanes.

2)LaFranchi, Howard. "Haiti economy shows signs of life after earthquake: Across Port-au-Prince, indicators of a renascent economy after the Haiti earthquake are unmistakable: bustling street markets, reopened clothing shops, and long lines at cellphone providers, remittance-receiving agencies, and banks." The Christain Science Monitor, Jan.27,2010, www.proquestk12.com.

Talks about all of the money that is going to be going into Haiti and that if it is managed well then it will create a lot of jobs.

3)Boodhoo, Niala. "A look at rebuilding Haiti's earthquake-shattered economy." McClatchy - Tribune Business News, Mar. 18, 2010. www.proquestk12.com.

Talks about the exact economic damages in Haiti, especially Port- Au- Prince.

4)The Washington Post. "Hoping to turn the tide; Haitian planners count on seaside town of Jacmel to revitalize shattered country." The Washington Post, Mar. 16, 2010, www.proqestk12.com.

This one also talks about how the earthquake has effected Haiti's economy. But this one goes more into specifics.

5) Kinzie, Susan. "Texts and tweets speed donations for Haiti; 'Unprecedented' giving during recession surprises aid groups." The Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2010, www.proquestk12.com.

This article talks about what other countries are doing to help Haiti's economy and also how other countries can help.

Thesis Statement: Mesopotamian and Indus Valley

In history class on Tuesday, we were put into groups of three and given the assignment of answering this question though a thesis statement and a "T" chart comparing the two civilizations. We had just finished two readings as homework, one about Mesopotamia and the other about Mohenjo- Daro. We were given sites to look at to help us find information and also we could use our notes that we took on the previous readings.

Why did the Mesopotamian civilization thrive for thousands of years and the Indus Valley civilization disappear relatively quickly.

We thought about this and decided that the main reason that Mesopotamia lasted a lot longer was because it was more of a location to settle in, apposed to a civilization. Mohenjo- Daro, however, was a civilization, or nation as I should call it after that one history class, therefor it had more of an opportunity to be a) taken over or b) just end because of societal flaws. In out T chart, we said that some similarities between the two were that they were both located near a water source and had some type of irrigation system. Also they both had some form of pictographic language. Those were the only major similarities that we found but I am sure that there are probably more similarities. But also, since Mesopotamia wasn't an actual civilization, it didn't have just one language, but thousands of forms of a similar language. An interesting thing that we found about Mesopotamia and also put in out T chart was that it has tons of information about it on the internet and throughout other sources as well. We determined that this is because it lasted a lot longer then Mohenjo- Daro civilization and frankly, a lot longer then a lot of civilizations. But I guess that is because it wasn't even a Civilization at all, but a place for tons different societies to locate themselves. When we researched Mohenjo- Daro, there were very little sources and also very little information if we did find a source. This is because this civilization didn't last for nearly as long as Mesopotamian. The fact that Indus Valley has very little info and lasted for not that long, there isn't any proof on religion or leaders, so we don't know if there was or wasn't a religion. There also isn't any evidence on what ended this civilization but we are lead to believe that the civilization ended due to floods. There were statues found that could possibly depict religious leaders or also society leaders. But the city lacks palaces, temples or any obvious central government. We learned that Mesopotamia's written language is called Cuniform while the Mohenjo- Daro written language is called indus- script.  

Our two options for thesis statements:

1)While Mohenjo-Daro was a civilization with a rise and a fall, Mesopotamia was an ongoing city-state that lasted countless societal changes.  Mesopotamia never fully declined, which is why historians know so much about it. 

2)Mesopotamia lasted for thousands of years because it was a city-state inhabited by various cultures, and underwent numerous societal changes, while Mohenjo-Daro was one civilization with a rise and a fall.

We chose to go with "Mesopotamia lasted for thousands of years because it was a city-state inhabited by various cultures, and underwent numerous societal changes, while the Indus Valley was one civilization with a single culture." So it is kind of a mix between both. 

Our essay, if we were to write one, would mostly consist of and talk about the comparisons between the Mesopotamian and Indus Valley Civilizations. I feel like that is what the thesis conveys but would be something that would require a lot of research because the Mesopotamia and Mohenjo- Daro are both very different. I think that also the paper would talk about how Mesopotamia was more of a city- state because is was inhabited by many different civilizations. And also it would talk about the possible ways Mohenjo- Daro could have ended and why Mohenjo- Daro ended. 

What's Wrong With the Word Civilization?

A question that we discussed a lot in History today was the question "What is wrong with the word civilization?"
We read a reading last thursday and discussed it in class today. 


We came up with a few answers for this question. The word "Civilization" suggests a higher form of society. And the opposite of civilized is barbaric, savage and uncivilized so therefor the word civilization implies civilized. This is a problem because not all civilizations are civilized and some can actually be very uncivilized. Savage is also the way that many civilizations thought of neighboring cities, so does that make those neighboring cities "uncivilizations"? No, because there is no such thing. A civilization, if thats what we think they called it back then, also implies that they even knew and had to same recognition of a bigger society as we do in modern time, but in actuality they had no idea. There is no way they could have known to call themselves a civilization because they most likely didn't travel to see all of the other civilizations out there so to them, they are the only thing out there that matters. The word civilization also implies that they so-called civilizations had distinct boundaries, which they didn't. And also that the people felt part of a shared community, which they probably didn't because the boundaries weren't really clear if there even were boundaries at all.  


In class, we decided that a more accurate word to describe the societies back then is the word "nation". The Dictionary definition of nation is "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory : leading industrialized nations."    This makes a lot more sense to describe the "civilizations" back then because it doesn't imply them being civilized and but it still describes it perfectly. It also doesn't imply that there are strict boundaries, just that this one place is where a group of people inhabited.

Environment and Basic Needs

So going back to a question I previously posted, "Does your geographic location determine your success and well- being?" 

I don't really think I did the best job answering that specific question. I mostly just talked about the Pyramid/ Hierarchy of Needs. But to answer the question, I do think that your location can effect the amount of success you have. Ok, so if you are thinking about the Hierarchy of Needs for an individual, the bottom is the basic needs. You are never going to do well if you don't have these basic needs, you actually wont do well at all because you will die. But pretty much any location that you chose you are going to be able to get these basic needs unless you chose to live either in the middle of the dessert or on the moon, and I don't really think that anyone would want to live there anyway. So if you look at the next level, it is safety and there are less places in the world that are safe then places that have food and water obviously, so there for people are more likely to live in an unsafe environment then a place with no basic needs. So this already cuts of a portion of people that are less likely to be successful. And these people won't be successful because you need to fulfill all of the levels of the Pyramid before you can reach success.  The next rows of the Pyramid have more to do with you as a person because esteem and actualization have more to do with yourself then your environment. But you will never be able to focus on your self-confidence or being creative if you are starving or are worrying about your safety all the time. So to finally answer the question "Does your geographic location determine your success?" yes it does just like your safety would, your sense of belonging would/ your esteem would and your self-actualization would.

Earthquake in Haiti Economics

I found an article, on ProQuest, that talkes about the economic effects on the apparel and global textile industries. The article talks about the global impact of the earthquale in Haiti and in Japan.

"Research and Markets: After the Earthquakes: Impact on the Textile and Clothing Industry Assesses the Wider Economic and Industrial Impact of the Earthquakes in Japan and Haiti." ProQuest. http://search.proquest.com/docview/859764889/1328C99344F2EEA703F/2?accountid=3360 (accessed October 21, 2011).

Connecting The Hierarchy of Needs with Civilization

How does the Hierarchy of Needs connect with the resent civilization project?
Today in History class, after we all shared our posters about our civilizations, we were asked to just write for a few minutes about how the Hierarchy of needs connects with a whole civilization, not just one person. I said that it connects because when you are making a civilization, everything about the hierarchy of needs has to come into consideration. Especially the physiology/base of the pyramid. When you are making a civilization, you are thinking about how the people who live in the  civilization are going to get food and water, like what is on the bottom of the pyramid. Safety is the next thing that you are going to think about because there is always the possibility that there will be forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and also tons of other natural disasters. When you think about it, any and every location that you choose to start a civilization is naturally going to have some possibility of having a natural disaster, you just have to weigh out the pros and cons and which natural disasters are more devastating and which ones are going to be less of a concern. It is harder to know whether a civilization is going to have good esteem or "achievement" as we called it today in history, based on the geographic location because that has everything to do with the actual people who live in the civilization. Also, you can't know if there is going to be love/belonging or "community" also as we called it today, based in the location of the civilization. But, you can know that there for sure wont be any sense of achievement or community if there is no sense of safety or physiology.

Environmental Unit Reading

Does your geographic location determine your success and well-being? 

So help visualize what I am talking about. 

In the reading, it talked a lot about the Hierarchy of Needs; a list of what is mandatory for survival and what is not as fundamental. I thought this was a really interesting because the idea of the Hierarchy of needs was developed about 100 years ago but to some it might still apply today. That is kind of the thing that I wanted to look more into and think about; does the Hierarchy of Needs still apply to today’s society. Well I think that the basics of the Hierarchy of Needs do still apply to today but as you go up the pyramid they might be different. I think that breathing, food water and everything else on the bottom of the pyramid is where it should be. As the pyramid goes up, the categories start to blur and mix into each other a little bit more. Something on the pyramid that I don’t agree with is the Esteem and the Love/ Belonging rows. I think that they should be switched and that Esteem should be the third row and Love/Belonging should be the fourth row. Because the pyramid is made so that once you have one row covered you can have the next row, then I think that you need to have to Esteem row covered in order to get the Love/ Belonging row covered. If you have a low self-esteem, low self- confidence, and no respect for others or from others, I am sorry but you probably will not get any friends. Maybe that is just the way it would be today but I wouldn’t want to be friends with someone that doesn’t respect me or who I don’t respect. But I do agree with the top of the pyramid when it says Self-Actualization. But I believe that you are not going to get very far in life if you don’t have creativity, morality, spontaneity, problem solving skills, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. So maybe there should be one more row to the Pyramid; Success and in this row would be education and job. You are not going to have success without self-actualization, esteem, love/belonging, safety and physiological well-being. 
 

Creating a Civilization

In history class, we were given the assignment to create our own ideal civilization using the knowledge from the year so far. We were told that we could make the civilization placed in any part of the world or even a made up place. For my group of three, we chose anywhere along Lake Michigan because we all felt that this is one place in the world that we know the best. We mapped ours out so that the civilization was based near the lake but not on the beach. Being near a freshwater resource is very important in the survival of humans and this water will obviously be used to drink by the members of the civilization. On the other side of the town is a forest. This forest is there so that the humans that belong to the civilization can hunt and gather food. On the two outer ends of our civilization are fields for livestock. Also near the fields are more fields but these are used for farming crops. The houses are arranged in to long but not perfect lines with a street/ path down the middle. We arranged our houses like this so that every part of the civilization is easy to get to. Because the lake is not super close, water would not be the easiest to transport to each house although it is still an option for water supply. To solve this problem we have made three wells in our civilization that way there is a more efficient way to get water and people wont have to travel so far. The three wells are located in the middle of the path so that they as well are easy to get to by every person who is a part of our civilization. Surrounding the well is a market where people can buy/trade for food and other goods. This is also important if not everyone is a farmer and owns live stock. The farmers and livestock owners can sell/trade in the markets for other things that they might need.

How has Humanity Abused the Environment?

How has humanity abused the environment? 

Humanity has abused the environment in many ways including pollution, over population, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and putting many harmful chemicals into the earth.

Pollution is a huge problem in America and all over the world. Although it is against the law in almost, if not every country, people still disrespect that law and litter anyway. This only creates an unhealthy and ugly earth that and if people continue to litter and pollute, it will eventually become filled with garbage and pollution. Also, humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which it burning holes in it, this contributes to global warming which will eventually also become a major problem and a threat for humanity.

Humans are also over populating the planet. This is extremely hard to prevent because unless you are communist, you tell people how many children they can have. And I am not telling people that they shouldn't have children but humanity as a whole needs to come up with a solution to prevent the world from becoming over populated. And also, the more people in the world the more garbage and pollution and chances to make the earth even more messed up.

We also have eliminated a lot of trees and wildlife on the planet. A ton of animals have become extinct because of us. Everything such as the plants and animals have grown and adapted on this earth for a reason or a purpose and as the animals, trees and plants die because of us, we are only taking away something that helps the earth in some way.

I think that what people don't understand about all of this is that the earth can actually over populate, or be taken over by global warming or in other world "die". I even find it kind of hard to wrap my head around the fact that the earth could die if we don't help it and stop all of the destructive things that we are doing.

Environmental Unit Introduction

In regard to the environment, what does the concept of balance mean?
Throughout the introduction balance was a theme that came up a lot, environmental balance is the impartiality between humans and the natural world and how humans and the environment keep each other in line.
Expanding in the idea of balance, in this reading, it was said that, in some people's opinion, that humans are going to end the world, that we are over populating the it and are killing the environment. I don't think that it is possible to believe in this statement and to believe in environmental balance, they contradict each other. Another point of view, relayed in the reading was that the environment will adapt to what humans are doing just as it always has. This also doesn't quite answer the question of "do you believe in balance." In the reading it said that "When that balance is upset, the environment simply corrects that balance through a number of different actions, many of which are deadly to humans." This is a statement that defends the concept of balance and I also agree with this statement. I believe that balance can, at times, get out of line, but something will happen on either end to make the balance kosher. It is really interesting to think about because it kind of if you believe in fate or not when dealing with the "over populated" aspect of it. Because if the world gets over populated, how is the earth supposed to know to have an earthquake to kill a ton of people? But when talking about the pollution part of it, it makes a little more sense. But still, while I semi- agree with the idea of environmental balance, I don't exactly see how they balance each other out or do things to bring each other back into line.

ProQuest Sources

What was the economical impact of the earthquake on Haiti?
This is the essay question that we have to find a source that could answer this question and help us write an essay about the question. I used an artcle from ProQuest called: "Estimating the Direct Economic Damages of the Earthquake in Haiti: The Journal of the Royal Economic Society" by: Eduardo Cavallo, Andrew Powell and Oscar Becarra. I got to this article by searching (Haiti Earthquake) AND (economic impact). This article uses both historical data and science to make their estimates on how much it would cost to rebuild Haiti. It also talks a lot about the economical effects on Haiti and makes an initial estimation of to economical damages from the earthquake using Haiti's economic and demographic data. It states that the base etimate is 8.1 billion US dollars but this may be on the lower side and could be as much as 13.9 billion US dollars. If there was 200,000 then the estimate on the damages would be 7.2 billion US dollars but if there were 250,000 dead and missing people then the estimate would be 8.1 billion US dollars. Becasue most estimates say that the amount of dead and missing people is closer to 250,000 that means the estimate is 8.1 billion US dollars or more. To estimate the economical damages in Haiti, they had to combine the world's data from about 2,000 natural catastrophes that all happened between 1970 and 2008. But there have been few catastropes this big so that is also taken into consideration when making estimates. They use the damage of each event as a function of the number of missing and dead people, size of the country, the real GDP per capita and linear trends to model the dollar amount of damage.

I chose the article because I thought that is clearly addressed the essay question given. Not only did it talk about econimcal effects but it went on to talk about what it would take, economically to re-build Haiti. It also used a different kind of approach by using both history and science to make estimates and I thought that was kind of interesting.

The Earthquake in Haiti

Major Facts from the Reading:
In the reading about the earthquake in Haiti, I found that some of the most valuable information to me was the fact that people didn't even know who their leader was, or at least they were confused about it. I think that alone says how much these people lost and how catastrophic this earthquake was to these people. Another thing was, since everything was so damaged, Haiti's communication and transportation centers were not functioning properly. This hindered the whole country because they couldn't get the aid and supplies that they needed from helping countries. Everything was slowed down by this. Some people said that they delay in supplies lead to angry people who committed crimes such as looting and violence.  A doctor said that the violence and crimes were only delaying the supplies even longer, but citizens countered that the crime rate actually went down after the earthquake . Also, so many people died in this earthquake, there were so many people that Haiti had to bury them in mass graves. By January 22, the United Nations declared that the "emergency phase" was almost over and the government called off search for survivors. The airport control was passed onto the United States and before January 14, no relief efforts were organized by groups.  Many people were crossing the border into the Dominican Republic because they needed medical assistance and all of the hospitals in Haiti were filled. The Dominican Republic said that people could only come into their country if they are in need of medical help but they could only stay temporarily.

A question that I thought of while reading, but couldn't come up with an explanation for was: How is a country with no experience supposed to be prepared for catastrophe?
This kind of relates to the Hurricane Katrina story, because they were not prepared. But these situations are actually very different because the New Orleans government actually lied to their people about being prepared enough, in this case the government is at fault. In Haiti, the government never lied to their people, they just simply didn't prepare at all for earthquakes because they didn't have the funding or the experience with earthquakes. So in this case, it is the rest of the world at fault because they didn't provide money or knowledge to the Haitians.

Given the fact that many government officials and leaders were killed, how did the Haitian government and the citizens function and know what to do in the after math of the earthquake?
This is a question that two other people and I formulated in class on Tuesday. The issue of many government officials and leaders were killed leaves Haiti in a terrible situation. They have hardly no one to turn to or to direct them. It is very difficult not to be told what to do, especially after an incident like a deathly earthquake. Even though the president survived the earthquake, people were still confused over who was in charge. This shows how little the government informed the people and how bad the situation really was. And this kind of leads to another question that we came up with: Given the delays in supplies and angry people, how was the Haitian government supposed to control the people? The previous question is very relevant to this question and actually pretty much answers it. There was very little government and even the government that there was, people were confused about.

Given the fact that many of the Haitian people who died in the earthquake were buried in mass graves, how was the morale of the people effected by this?
Tons of people died during this earthquake, so many that the government and the country couldn't handle it. They had to bury a lot of people in mass graves. I am sure that this must have really effected the people's families and friends because being buried in a mass grave is kind of inhumane and doesn't show respect to the person who just died. I know that if one of my family members or a friend died and was not buried properly I would be very angry. And also, just the fact that there were so many people that died, they didn't even have enough room to bury all of them correctly. That alone is very heartbreaking because it means that so many people died.

                                                                 

In What Ways Where the People of the Gulf Coast Affected?

In What ways were the people of the gulf coast affected?
Well, obviously in many ways, they were hit by a hurricane! But I guess it wasn't the fault of the Hurricane that made this issue so catastrophic. It was the fault of the government and the Core of Engineers. They did not design the levees that they said they would, they were supposed to go 17 feet into the ground but only went ten. This affected the people because if the engineers would have built and designed the levees they said that they would, there would never have been the kind of damage that there was. So really, it isn't the hurricane at all that caused such demolition, it is the people who made (and failed at making) the levees. Everyone's houses were destroyed and they lost everything, sometimes even their lives. Also, I am sure that they were mentally scarred. One police officer was telling lies about things happening in the super dome. He said that lots of babies were being raped and that helicopters were being shot by hungry people. These were all lies, maybe he was just trying to draw attention to the situation or something but all this did was bring negative media attention to the whole thing. And he was a cop too! But that just shows how rumors get around and stories change a little every time they are told. This affected the people of the gulf coast because nobody knew what was the truth and what wasn't. Government officials took over four months to arrive and clean out the city. In all that time, things were just getting worse and worse. The after math of the hurricane was worse then actual hurricane. Also, when help finally did arrive, they didn't even do a good job of helping. Well for one, taking six months to search for dead bodies is already soooooo unacceptable, but then overlooking tons of houses is just pathetic for the whole country. When the government search groups said they looked through houses and that there were no people found in the houses, later dead people were found in the abandoned houses. To find a dead relative that you thought was alive in your own house is, I am sure, mentally scarring and would for sure affect people for the rest of their lives.

New Orleans were not the only ones affected. The entire country was affected by this in one way or another. The federal government got bad media attention for not taking action on this issue sooner. It took them way to long to get help over to New Orleans. For the rest of the country, it slightly diminishes their faith in the country and the government.  

Betsy and Katrina

Today in class, we watched a film about Hurricane Katrina. In the film, people who survived Hurricane Katrina talked about their experience and what they witnessed. We learned that a natural disaster is not all natural, especially hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Katrina. The film not only talked about the environmental issue of it, but also brought up the issues of government, religion and social class.


In hurricane Betsy, the levees were actually blown up so that the less expensive, lower class part of town would get flooded instead of the more expensive, upper class part of town. This left the people who lived in the part of New Orleans that got flooded, feeling resentment and anger toward the government and so know they don't trust them. When Hurricane Katrina came along, the people heard a boom, a lot like the boom in Hurricane Betsy that broke the levees. When water started coming in through a hole in the levee, the people automatically assumed that the hole was made by the government to flood out the lower class area. Even after everyone found out it wasn't actually the government, they were still mad because it was still the governments fault. The government said that the levees could hold, just to satisfy the people, but they didn't hold and the government lied.


A few days after the Hurricane, people were stranded on top of their houses and in buildings because everything was all flooded. The people in the ninth ward were holding up signs saying "help me" and "SOS" but all of the people in the helicopters that should have been helping them just flew by to help the people in the wealthier neighborhoods. There was no help provided to the people of the ninth ward until all of the other people were okay. That is not fair and is another reason for the people who live in the ninth ward to be mad at the government.

So now the main question: In what ways did Hurricane Katrina change the way people live their lives?
This is a question we were asked to think about while we watched the movie in class. Well, for starters, some people lost everything; their families, their possessions, their house, and even their own lives. It is devastating to think of all the people who were left with nothing. Also, like I talked about before, some people lost their trust with the government. The government was not helping the people in the ninth ward when necessary and they even lied to the people about the levees being strong enough to hold. Their lives are changed by this because they have lost a sense of trust in the government that they may have had before. Since the government wasn't being truthful and the people didn't trust the government, they will be living in fear for the rest of their lives in New Orleans because they will never know if the government is just trying to calm people down or if they are telling the actual truth. Not only will they be in fear because of the government, but also, a hurricane is a natural disaster which means that there is nothing to prevent them from happening again and being even stronger time after time. 

How Do Civilizations Take Advantage of Other Civilizations?

When my group was brain storming ideas for the three questions about epoch three, How do societies take advantage of other societies was one of the questions we came up with but decided not to use. I think this is a really good question because we see societies taking advantage of other societies all the time today and, as shown through epoch three, it happened a lot back then as well.

When the Europeans came over to the Americas, they took a ton of advantage of the Native Americas who lived there before. The Native Americans, who were not as advanced in their technology, were easily taken over by the Europeans who came to America. The Europeans took advantage of the Native American's land, and lack of advanced technology.

The Europeans also took advantage of the African civilizations that they came across when they expanded to Africa. Much like the Native Americans, the Europeans took advantage of the fact that Africa was not as advanced as them. They also easily took those civilizations over. The Europeans kidnapped some of the Africans and took them over to America to be slaves. This is an example of how Europeans took advantage of the African people.

There are many more times in this Epoch that civilizations took advantage of other civilizations but, to me, these are two of the most important.

The Events of Epoch Three

In history, we were all assigned different epochs and with a group, we are supposed to come up with the most three questions about each epoch. After we came up with the questions about the epochs, we need to give specific events to answer the questions. My group was given epoch 3.

How does one society's conflicts and progressions become an international issue?
We directly related this question to World War One. We decided to use World War One as an example because it started with just a few countries and ended up being a world war. This happened because Franz Ferdinand, the heir of Austria- Hungary, was killed by the Black Hand (a Serbian nationalist secret society). The conflicts between two groups led to an entire world war. Also, another example of how one country's beliefs during World War I can lead to global conflict is the political change in Russia to communism. This conflicted with other countries political beliefs which only made Russia a target. The Scientific revolution is an example of how one society's progression and achievement can become global. The newly found math and science tools lead to people beginning to question religion and lean more toward the scientific facts. This changed a lot of people's lifestyles because they questioned the church and this helped lead to the French Revolution. 

Why are leaders important to society?
Our group connected this to the Napoleonic Era. Napoleon, a french leader, lead France away from corruption and destruction after the French Revolution. He made France advanced politically, and economically. By doing this, Napoleon made France a powerful and distinguished country that was highly recognized by lots of other countries. France was a country to look up to, and that was only done with the help of Napoleon, their leader.

Why and how do societies expand and diminish?
We found that the European expansion to America was a pretty obvious example of how societies expand. They sent over people over to America to explore the continent that had never been heard of by them before. Europe settled in America in order to get more territory and power. After more Europeans came over to America, they started exterminating the Native Americans as well as contaminating them with diseases brought over by Europe.  That is how that society diminished. Europe also expanded over to Africa and created European colonies over there and that is another example of how societies expand. The Europeans took over and controlled all of the African people and forced them to follow their religion and rules of society. Europeans brought some of the people from Africa to America so they could be slaves, this started to diminish their society but not all of it.

What is Globalization?

Globalization, by definition means "Describes a process by which regional economics, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of communication, transportation and trade." That is the internets definition of Globalization. So basically taking everything about a civilization and making it global. So I guess an example of globalization is the internet because it is something that everyone in the world has access to and can see. It is a way to pass information and culture to different societies. An older example of globalization was the silk road. The silk road was a trade route throughout Europe and Asia and was used to trade goods. But not only did the silk road trade goods, it exchanged culture.

How has Globalization influences today's society? Well, I think thay globalization has really influenced today's society because we would be not be the same without it, we would not know as much as we do if we didn't have it. Without globalization their would be no wars because everyone would be extremely sheltered in their own little country. When you think about it, we woul know pretty much nothing. We wouldn't have all the history or language classes that we have, and math and science would be totally different with the philosophies and discoveries. Economics would be completely different. It is interesting to think about what all the economies would be like. Would they all be perfect and without a problem because what other countries would we be giving money to? Or would it be terrible because there is no one to give money to you?

When you weigh out the pros and cons about globalization, I would say that it does a LOT more good then bad. No one would be the same if there was no such thing as globalization.

-Sarah

How Ancient Greece Plays a Role in Todays Society

Today in history class, we were asked to list the top five most important event in each epoch. In epoch two, I chose the most important to be the Fall of Ancient Greece. After much discussion in class I realized that the Fall of Ancient Greece isn't what I actually meant. The question that I had to ask was, is the actual act of Ancient Greece falling the important thing, or was the fact that Athenes, a civilization far ahead of its time, even happened and then ended. The Athenians, who were part of one of the greatest civilizations known to earth, were defeated by the Spartans. But what is more impressive, all the things that the Ancient Greeks, especially the Athenians, were able to accomplish and influence today's society in such a strong way? Or the fact that the Spartans had a strong enough military to beat them? If you ask me, it is much more impressive to have accomplished and discovered all of those things then to have a good military.

One thing that the Ancient Greeks invented that really influences today was the idea of Democratic Government. This has made such a huge impact on today's society, especially in America, and is pretty much the base of our entire Government. Another thing that has made an impact on today are their philosophies. The Ancient Greeks brought to this world the idea of biology and physics and cosmology. These philosophies have had a huge effect on how we view science and math and almost the whole world. Ancient Greece has even introduced the idea of psychology. Some could argue that everything all leads back to the ancient philosophies of the Greeks. Some other things that Ancient Greece has introduced and started an idea for are the discoveries of art, literature, theater and architecture. In the end, Ancient Greece has almost created a base for everything that is used in today's world and is so much more meaningful then being able to win a war.


- Sarah Humphrey

History in the Textbook

Today in History class, we were asked to go through two history text books and get the author, title, publishing date, the organizing strategy, the shortest period of time per chapter, the longest period of time per chapter, and the amount each area of the world gets in the book. When we were first given this assignment, I will be honest, I did not quite understand the meaning of it. I was thinking, how does this relate to actual history? Well, it actually does say a lot about history and what people find important. After all the data I collected, something I realized was that in both of the text books, the amount of years that were covered per chapter became less and less in chronological order. This means that we either know a lot less about things that happened a long time ago or we find that information not important. When I think about it, we definentely know a lot less about things that happened a long time ago, but also, I don't think that people would find that information as relevant today. But I think that the things that happened a long time ago are the most important, especially in this class, because I am looking for themes in world history. In the second book, the chapter that covered the least amount of time was 31 years before, during and after World War 2. The chapter that covered the most amount of time was 3500 B.C.E. to 1500 B.C.E. I also found that Europe and Asia got the most amount of pages in the book. Obviously, one would think that America would get the least because it wasn't discovered until Europe and Asia were already well developed. But since the more resent years were covered the most, I was suprised to see that America wasn't covered as much as all the rest of the continents. All in all, I wasn't too surprised with the outcome of the data collected from the History text books.

How did Religion Come into the World?

 The question I will attempt to answer is how religion came into play. A discussion in class today about how history, brought up the question of how religion started and triggered an idea for a blog post. Epoch one was the Epoch of origins, the Epoch of firsts. Religion was one of the things that started in the first Epoch. If you think about it, religion and god is a pretty strange thing for someone to think of. I mean how would anyone even think of something like that. I guess it all comes down to what you personally believe. I don't know enough about all the different religions to say that I am religious or that I follow a certain religion. I guess I would call myself questioned or agnostic. It is hard for me to even think that there is a greater being up there that is always watching. But then, I have been brought up Christian so it is hard to believe that there isn't some sort of greater being. It is hard for me to explain but sometimes I believe it but when I actually think about it, I find it hard to believe. So if, there is no actual god but some people still believe, how could they even come up with that idea? Maybe they just need something in their life to give them hope and so they made up the idea of a god. When I think about it, there must have been something that made these people think that there is some sort of god. But what if that isn't what it is at all? What it is something completely different altogether? And what about heaven? I don't know how anyone could come up with an idea like that? If, like they say, heaven comes after death, how would they know if they have never died before? There is now way of anyone knowing if there is such thing as heaven if you are still alive. My conclusion for this topic for now is that people just wanted something to believe in. They needed that reassurance with god there to watch them because with no god, they would have no protection and guidance.

History and the Past

I think that the difference between history and the past is not an easy question to answer.
The past is everything that has happened prior to this very moment. The past could be a year ago or the past could be .5 seconds ago. Everything, wether its important or not. History, to me, is everything that has previously happened that has somehow made an impact in the world. The impact could be as small as me, buying a purse at Bloomies, or as big as a Crusade. History can make an impact on many people or even just on person. One could say that the past is history, that everything that they have done has made some sort of impact, but someone else could say that they have done many things that have made zero impact whatsoever. I can't say that I believe one thing or the other, because I could do things that have no effect on me but later on could have a huge effect on someone else. I guess I could say that not everything that has happened in my past is part of MY history but everything that is done, is somehow part of both history and the past.