Exam Thoughts

I thought that the exam was moderately hard. There were definitely more quotes and questions like that, where you have to apply what you know to a passage, map, etc. I felt moderately prepared, but it's only my fault because I didn't really study that much on my own. The review definitely helped, although I think it needs to be more broad than it was. During the review the questions seemed really specific, and that got me worried. On the test however, there were very few questions that were specific, and most of them were broader in scope. I think the review needs to focus more on trends/aspects of civilizations rather than individual leaders for example. It did help though.

Communist Blog Post

Sorry this is belated, I was out yesterday (please be merciful)...

4 Positive Things
1. One big positive thing that Marx has listed is that all children should receive a free education, and the abolition of child labor within factories. I believe that this is an idea that is very ahead of its time, and is something that we practice today.
2. Marx believes that there is an obligation for everyone to work. I agree with this, at least to a certain point. While everyone should remain productive, I do not think that thinkers and scientists should be forced to work in the fields, as this would result in stagnation of society.
3. I also agree with the point that sometimes the capital that is distributed to workers as pay is often used as a means of exploitation. We have learned of factories which open up stores to sell basic goods to its workers, albeit at an exorbitant cost. This results in a cycle in which only the upper class is benefiting, and the lower class is always losing.
4. The centralization of transport and communication under the government also sounds like a good idea to me. While it is not a totally a monopoly today, the government has a heavy hand in both transport and communication present-day. Again, like free public education, I believe that Marx was onto an idea that was ahead of its time.

4 Negative Things
1. I believe that the confiscation of all land of emigrants and rebels is extreme. I assume that by "rebels", Marx refers to all of those who disagree with his methods. This is essentially a way to silence the dissenters. This to me is a negative, as it can be seen in history that often times the dissenters are the ones who are right in the end.
2. A monopoly over production by the government also sounds like a bad idea to me. Although capitalism is not perfect, competition fuels innovation. Without innovation, technology stagnates. Not only that, but it only takes a corrupt government official to totally change the production of an entire industry at his/her whim.
3. An abolition of classes would overall be a bad decision. While sometimes the upper class may take advantage of the lower class, it is important to have something for people to aspire to. When a factory worker wakes up i a capitalist society, he can always aspire to one day be the manager of the factory and make it rich, and this provides motivation. In a communist society, ideally everyone remains in the same class their whole life, so where is the motivation to keep going knowing that nothing can be gained?
4. I also believe that a total societal revolution can be a bad thing. It is easy to get swept up in ideals, but after the bad guys are overthrown, it is too easy to simply put on their shoes. Not only that, but who gets to be the leaders in a society such as this? Ideally, everyone is equal in class, so why does this guy get to lead over that guy? It is these kinds of conflicts which would splinter a revolution after its occurrence in my opinion.

Liberator Heroes

All of the portraits have some reference to war or fighting, either through weapons or through blood. This shows that the leaders are willing to fight for what they believe in, or die trying. Also, all of the portraits include some literary content. This is included to contrast the fighting bit; although the leaders can fight, they are also scholars. This is important to win the hearts of the civilians: no one wants an idiot ruler. In all of the portraits besides the one of Marat portray their respective hero as standing. This is because a man standing seems much more ready and intimidating than a man who is sitting.

The artists portray the heroes in this way in order to build respect for these heroes, and also to inspire future generations. If these heroes just liberated a state from an oppressive government, they must not appear oppressive or unwelcoming to the citizens who they just liberated. Also, these portraits are made to inspire future generations. If a revolution is ever required again, rebels will look to past revolutionaries. This will inspire them. For example, if you want to be an astronaut, and you see an awesome portrait of an astronaut, you will be inspired even further.

Revolutions need heroic figures for a few reasons. For one, people need to be inspired to revolt, and these leaders provide a face for the ideals that these rebels fight for. Also, it makes the revolution seem more intimidating to enemies. When they are alive, heroic figures provide moral to rebels. When they die, heroic figures act as a martyr for their cause. This puts their enemies in a jam, as a heroic figure can be just as dangerous dead as alive. I believe that the figures are being celebrated for their ideals and persons in combinations. This is because ideals and persons become one in the same for heroic figures: their person becomes synonymous with their ideals. 

TED talk

First of all, that guy was awesome.

Now that we've got that out of the way...
I agree with what Niall was saying. In my opinion, the West is falling. Though I am only in high school, I feel as though I can see the signs of an aging civilization everywhere. Simply turning on the news, and considering the stories in perspective, can make one's head spin at what is truly going on in this country, and to some extent, in other Western countries. There is one point where I did disagree with Niall, however. I do not think the West can be saved, barring a non-nuclear war. The seeds of lethargy have been planted in America, and the only way to dis-root them is to join the country together to obtain one goal. It has happened before: WWII, the space race, and even the war in Iraq to some extent. Unless we can all join together for one purpose, we will fall. This is why I believe the East, particularly China, is strong. Though not a true Communist state, the citizens of China are tasked with the preservation of the state. The citizens of America are simply concerned with the preservation of the self. I am not saying that Communism is the answer, but if one looks at the current state of our country, the flaws will become clear. What actually works? I don't know, but I bet someone in China does....

...I hope you enjoyed my rant....

Nothing better than a blog post on the weekend

      I believe that the textbook chose to lump together the Safavids, Ottomans and Mughals together in chapter 28 because they all of the civilizations have some things in common, and the textbook has to be economical. There is only so many chapters the book can include, and sometimes they have to lump things together in a seemingly illogical sense in order to save space. I think that it was a good decision, because if you took all of the info from each of the civilizations and made a chapter for each civilization, they would be really lacking. Although it doesn't flow perfectly, I believe that one larger chapter makes more sense than three chapters that lack in info.
      Overall, I think that global interaction is almost always a good thing, including this period of interactions. There are always cons that come with cross-cultural interactions, including disease. Also, the interactions between the Europeans and the Native Americans can be considered almost tragic. But one must look at the big picture. First of all, had Europeans never colonized the western Hemisphere, we would probably not be here today. Also, contact between Western and Eastern civilizations was bound to occur at some point, so the spread of disease is inevitable. In terms of pros, I believe that the spread of food, culture and ideas definitely counter acts the losses. It is hard to determine the value of a life, and it is definitely arguable whether or not the loss of lives in America was worth the ideas that spread from East to West, for example. But I think that, in the long term, it was worth it. (Although, if I was one of the Native Americans, I might have a different perspective) .

Fabian Fucan's attack on Christianity

Fabain Fucan's attack on Christianity reveals an aspect of those who spread Christianity. The aspect is that these who spread the Christian faith were very dense. According to Fucan, it would be impossible to convert Japan to Christianity, and he mocks the missionaries' attempts to do so. Considering that it the conversion of Japan was thought to be impossible, the missionaries were very conceded in thinking that they could. This attack also reveals a social aspect of the time. When Fucan fell from Christianity, he attacked it. This shows the intense competition between religions for support, and how ardently followers would defend their faith. Fucan followed Christianity for 20 years, and rather than say that the faith is simply not for him, he claims that it is a foolish doctrine and only for the "barbarians". People during that time were willing to quickly judge and dismiss any doctrines that did not appeal to them, or they could not understand.

Weekend Project

http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=3I87zto 

^ Here is the link for my showme presentation. Mine was on the Antonian movement, sorry if there is background noise. I worked with Katie, Neil and Paige. We each did something we considered significant to the chapter. If you wish, you may watch the showmes all at once, forming some kind of super showme (warning: not recommended).