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.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, November 11, 2011
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.
Monday, November 7, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, November 4, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
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.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)