AP Exam

The AP exam was not at all what I expected. It was actually easier than I expected as well. The multiple choice was long but was very general. I expected more specificity in the questions. For the essays? There were ridiculous! The DBQ was just long and about cricket? Really? The other two I just wasn't ready for.

On the side of review, I thought our in class review was very good. Fly swatter is always a good refresher. The edmoto was also very interesting. It was nice to hear opinions on the things that were posted.

Communist Manifesto

Pros:   A graduated income tax should work.  As people get more money, they have more money to give to the government.

A centralized bank could potentially work in a perfect world, but not the real world.  It would be nice to all have equal banking and rights to money.  The problem is that banks need to make money too.

Free education is something we have today.  It is very useful and actually works correctly.  Other than teachers' unions striking, the public school system runs smoothly.  It is funded based on the amount of students and wealth of the town.  It means that everyone, no matter how much money they have, should start out with the same foundational education.  Because of funding, poorer people often get a worse education, but the main idea works.

Equal obligation also sounds like it should work.  Labor should be distributed equally.  People should work about as hard as each other, and people should make about the same amount of money.  The problem is that the owner of a high tech business can't be making the same as the guy selling burgers at McDonald's.  This idea would only work if it was graduated, so there were tiers of income based on position.


Cons:   Abolition of all rights or inheritance would mean that when someone died, their possessions would go to the government, not whomever they wrote in their will.  This would supposedly put people all on the same starting level, but really it just creates a system were everyone struggles, instead of some people.

Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels would make the rebellions worse.  If you anger rebels, they rebel more.  If rebels don't have a home, they live on the streets and rebel more.  If rebels don't have rights, they have more to rebel against.

The state can't control everything.  If the state controlled everything, it would be a small group of misrepresenting men making the rules.  For example, if our government controlled everything with the public having no say, there would be a death penalty in every state, no gay marriage, no abortion, and no minorities in the public eye.

People can't combine agriculture and production industries.  They work off of each other, but they would bring each other down if they were the same thing.  They each need the other, but if production and agriculture were owned by the same people, first, many people would be jobless, second, people wouldn't have options in products.  They would all be created by the same people.

Liberators

Everyone of these people are portrayed similarly.  Well, at least the ones I saw.  Yet again, my internet is refusing to show my the page.  From what I saw, these people are portrayed in a way that makes them look important.  They also look like leaders, but not in a nice way.  They all look important, but with a forced pose.  The pose makes it seem as if the importance was act.  That's just my opinion, but that is how I see it.  The only difference is in the second picture.  It is odd and kind of creeps me out.  The person looks dead, as if it was suicide.

These people were portrayed this way to be presented as leaders, as someone to look up to and follow.  This means that future generations will hopefully look up to these men.  They might see them as role models of how to make a change, especially if they are portrayed regally.

These revolutions need a heroic figure to be a leader.  A riot or revolt would be chaotic with a leader.  The leader needs to be someone whom people will listen to and respect.  These leaders all look the part of being in charge and being heroic in a time of need.

TED

So... Of course as I was approaching the 7 minute mark of this video, the video cut out and wouldn't start up again.  I have no clue what 2 thirds of the speech was about.  All I can talk about is what I did hear and see.  The main point I got from the beginning was that countries strive with laws created from reason.  The countries that have historically pulled ahead have all had a set of laws for the citizens to follow.  I agree that this makes sense.  With laws, there is a normal way people act based on fear of consequences mixed with predisposition to follow instincts.  Without laws, people have no reason to not do something if it doesn't affect them self in a negative way as jail time or fines would.  Another big example for reasonable versus not reasonable was communism.  As communism sounds like it could work, it is an extreme.  In both Germany and Korea, when the country was split, half became communist.  It both cases, the communist half fell behind as the non-communist side accelled in both technology and culture.  So, from the small amount of the video I saw, I agree with Niall Ferguson.  His points make sense, and coincide with what I believe.  I have a feeling that I missed a big point in the video, but what can I do; I just can't always rely on technology.

The Islamic Empires

A lot of people didn't like the textbooks organization for this chapter.  I actually did.  It was choppy, but it mostly stayed in chronological order.  The Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals were put together because they happened together.  They were all around the same time.  They even interacted with each other.  I think putting them together was good because it showed the interactions and effects on each empire.

Overall, I think this period of interaction was good thing.  Not everyone got along, but that never really happens.  Interaction among multiple groups of people is always good for the world.  Even if people die or there are wars, culture and people spread.  It makes the whole world, or at least those societies, more united.  There were three prominent Islamic empires, and they all had defining characteristics.  All being around the same time made it easier to see which of these characteristics worked and which didn't.

Capitalism... For Real

Capitalism is an economy designed to circulate money through buyers, sellers, and producers.  It is completely based on supply and demand.  Supply and demand determine what is made, how much is made, and what price it is worth.  When people need something a lot, demand goes up which means there needs to be more supply.  The sellers buy from the producers, then they sell to buyers for a profit.  When more people need something, and the supply is not as high, the cost of that product goes up.  When there is an over-abundance of something, the cost goes down to help get rid of the product.

Hmmmmm... March 1st

First of all, Christianity keeps breaking up and branching off.  Why? Because Christians finds things in Religion they like, and things they don't like.  People from different parts of the world obviously don't always want the same things out of religious, no less than they believe much different things.  Christianity has become very broad.  In the past, whenever it moved to a new place, the people there would adapt to it but keep the parts they like and change other things.  For example, Lutheranism.  It is basically Christianity just with the "important" parts highlighted and everything else fallen by the wayside.  As this continues to happen, Christianity continues to spread and become a more general term.

And wait... capitalism? That's what the US is supposed to have, right?  I don't know much about it and could be completely wrong, but I think it is a type of economy based off of buyers and sellers.  People buy things and put money into "the system."  Producers use the money to produce and distribute.  Sellers get more money from buyers to pay for production and distribution.  It works something like that.  Also, taxes are thrown in pretty much everywhere.  It might just be a US thing, but the government seems to take money from pretty much everything.  And why is the US still in billions of dollars in debt? ...But that's a different topic.

Griots

Would I love to learn history from griots? Of course! Would I actually be able to learn anything from griots? Most likely not.  Yes, they would be more entertaining than reading.  Yes, they would also capture my attention, and probably be pretty memorable.  The problem is... I would remember the song or dance, and not the point or meaning.  Also, griots could not get as much depth as a book and class.  They would have to go on all day for that.  Of course it would be more fun than a textbook, but I don't think it would be practicle is history was taught through griot.

Mongol Trials Reflection

I thought the Mongol Trials were surprisingly fun.  They also turned out to be much more challenging than I had expected.  I was the cross examiner for the Mongol defense.  I thought I did pretty well as I got my point across and seemed to make the other side question some of their points.  I think I should have questioned more prosecuting witnesses to reinforce what I was saying.  I also wish I had made objections when I thought necessary.  I don't think I did because of how much it bugged me that the other side was confidently repeating their points over and over again.  The points weren't all strong but sounded intimidating because of the confidence.  My team as a whole needed to work on confidence, force in their speech, and not passively agreeing with the other side (specifically Futaba).  About the verdict? I think the prosecution should have won kidnapping and terrorism, yet terrorism was close.  Genocide seemed to be helping the defense and going along with what we said.  As for the real Mongols?  I think they were talented fighters and executed conquest better than anyone in history.  I think they were a little bit crazy and killed a few too many people, but overall overcame a great feat of conquering pretty much everyone they could reach.

Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan had power over almost anyone he wanted.  I think he was a skilled ruler gone crazy.  He had a rough childhood and lost his wife.  He became a killer and terrorist because of it.  He was crazy and did go overboard, but his intentions were good.  He wanted to find his wife and get her back.  He became overwhelmed and continued killing and capturing people to gain his reputation he has now.  I think he was a good intentioned ruler who just lost control of himself.

Crusades Project: #7; Fifth Crusade

Yet again, the Christians try a crusade. Yet again, they fail a crusade.  As the Muslims see them coming, they were thinking, "Ughh... Not again."  They still don't feel a threat, just annoyance. As they see them in their armor, sweating and overheating, they think "wow, do these people ever think? Maybe they should for a change.  Maybe then they would have even a little chance against us."  Once the crusaders have either died or fled, the Muslims realize yet another crusade has just been a waste of their time.  "Ha. Ha. Ha. We are kind of even disappointed about how pathetic the Christians are. We could take them any day. What were they thinking with their heavy, metal armor. :/ "

Crusades Project: #10; Eighth Crusade

As the crusaders set out for last attempt, the Muslims are feeling bored with these crusades.  "When are they gonna just give up? They know we are just gonna destroy them and all of their states."  The Muslims have pretty much stopped caring because they don't see a threat from the Christians.  As the crusaders run from defeat, the Muslims think to themselves, "Wow, scaredy-cats. That was way easier than it should have been. Let's PARTY!" They then went on living their lives.

Crusades Project: #4; Third Crusade

This was an easy win for the Saladin.  The Muslims must have thought it was almost even a joke.  They must have thought to themselves, "hmmm... Well if there is only one invader instead of the original three, this wont be so bad."  The crusaders had also never been greatly successful in the past. Muslims - "They were never a threat before, so they probably aren't now.  I bet Saladin is really giving us the better end of this diplomacy  deal thing."

Crusades Project: Bibliography

"The Crusades: A History of Conflict." BBC News. BBC News, Monday, 24 April, 2006. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4938202.stm>.

"Islamic History in Arabia and Middle East." IslamiCity. IslamiCity, n.d. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/sec10.htm>.

"Crusades - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity." Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity. Theopedia, Inc., September 2005. Web. 12 Jan 2012. <http://www.theopedia.com/Crusades>.

Crusades Project: Almost Done

The project is going well. I have done all of my research.  Now I just need to make my bibliography and post the Final Rage Comics.  For my research, I tried out sweetsearch.com.  It proved to be more specific than Google and matched my requests better.  Also, I have gotten feedback on my blog from other students.  People seem to be looking forward to the Rage Comics.  They think it is a good and original idea.  So far, the project is going as planned.

Crusades Project Part II

We have made a lot of progress on the rage comics.  I like that we chose that because it will be original and new to almost everyone.  Though rage comics have become popular, they have probably rarely, if ever, been used for learning history, or anything for that matter.  I hope the comedy in the comics will make reading them more enjoyable but not take away from the point.

Crusades Project

Today I chose my group to work with. It is Derek, Steven, Adam, Joe, Keval, and me. We decided so far that we will make a series of rage comic for the 3rd, 5th, and 8th crusades.