The AP Exam... or something like that

To sum up how the AP exam went in a few words: What was that? My immediate opinion is that it is supposed to test knowledge of world history, not the ability to find the biases of an author and then ASSUME what they meant, I finished MCAS last year and I would have perferred not go back to opinion-based questions. After the test, my brain was melting out of my ears, and I don't think I have ever hand-written 10 1/2 pages in that little time in my life. The MC questions were deffinatly the harder of the two sections, with many of the questions ending in "Welp... haven't used B in a while." As far as the review goes, I think (judging by the disribution of material) we should focus on the fall of empires and the government systems more, and continue to analyze patterns throughout history, which I found helped alot on the exam. The snacks were wonderful, what a gesture! The essays... well let's not go there. They were easy, although the C/C was hard to find differences (I mean, really), the COT was a piece-o-cake (at least I think, maybe I bombed it... who knows) and the DBQ was, as always, a DBQ. Other than that, it was an experience I am excited I only have to handle once, and a 3 or above would be fantastic, although after that MC section I don't really know who optimistic that is... my head was too numb to make heads or tails after the exam. To finish... done with the AP exam and thrilled about it.

In a word: No. The Communist Manifesto

Throughout the highly repetitive manifesto, which really does nothing more than say a bunch of times 'Rich people treat you like crap... use our system," and provides no better rebuttal than "This one isolated time in history in our isolated peninsula, when you skim over some facts, this is what happened, and it will happen again," brings up some things that are worthy of some closer examination.

The Negative:

1. Industry has led to the destruction of family life, and that has to stop:
• This was talked about, and what they say is true. Urban manufacturing halted the development of families and had parents sending their kids off to factories, and that had to stop, as it did in many developed countries later, but it is a problem that still happens in other less developed societies today.
2. Those with power have developed power abroad
• International power and shipping/trade has lead to the ability to accrue personal international power for those who own labor (or land).
3. The few who have money control the many that need to work
• Working in the factories makes money for the wealthy landowners, and helps workers improve their conditions very little
4. Machinery has destroyed distinctions in labor
• Mundane tasks mean society is no longer specialized, and so there is no reason/ opportunity for advancement the way there used to be with artisans and merchants working to improve their conditions

The Positive:

1. The need for workers to have rights
• This is a point that is still pushed somewhat today, especially when the media gets a good juicy clip of a sweatshop or unfair labor conditions in other countries ("enjoy that sweatshirt, a starving child made" it type media that really pushes the facts or just doesn't back them up).
2. Private property is a form of capital
• This is a statement I have to find myself agreeing with. Property is a form of wealth, and therefore a form of capital, and I agree with what Marx is saying to a point, I think too many of the wealth controlled the poor, but I think that we need property. In Africa, it was the lack of property that led to slaves as a form of social wealth and a display of social prominence. 
3. The need for a progressive income tax
• A fact most today would disagree with, and a point that to me doesn't fit with communism (maybe I'm misunderstanding...) but one that is important none the less. Without taxes, infrastructure and development cannot be supported on a wide scale, government does that and when the government cannot support or defend itself, it falls. This leads to a power vacuum in some cases and social unrest in all, so why would you want to do that? We need taxes that can support what we want from out government (public education, water, roads, medicare, etc.).
4. The need for a central bank that holds a monopoly
• When a central bank can hold a monopoly over the flow of money, it doesn't mean that other banks can't arise, it means that a central bank controls all of the the value of the money, and we have that to an extent today with the Federal Reserve System (those FDIC plaques are wonderful reminders), a bank that controls the flow of money and to a degree tracks where it flows. The only difference is that without a monopoly banks are able to invest money. Although this is generally good for the person who is collecting interest on the account, a monopolized bank would at least keep money secure, a critical need in any society. 

Liberator Portrayal... Judging a Book by the Cover?

Upon looking through pictures of the liberators on the PowerPoint (Washington, Marat, Toussaint, Bolivar), there are a few things that stick out to me right away when I look at them. The first is that all of them are portrayed with a weapon, but not one that is active. Washington, Toussaint and Bolivar are all portrayed as having sheathed swords. Marat, although not holding a sword, is holding a pen, which was his "weapon", in this case it was the instrument that he used to push for change. All of the men are also portrayed as having a mixture of military and scholarly leadership (again, except for Marat, who fought with the pen). Washington is portrayed as having a desk in a beautiful, well decorated room, while Toussaint is portrayed holding both paper and sword. Bolivar's portrait is set in a beautiful room with a pen and a globe in the background, both symbols of learning and knowledge. Marat, also, is portrayed as having pen in hand, and so we could see him as a martyr for his cause, fighting (with pen) to the death for change, as well as having scholarly knowledge portrayed with pen and paper in hand. In order to portray these men not as conquerors, but as scholars and knowledgable leaders, they must not be portrayed as warriors fighting, but instead as leaders working towards a goal. In order to portray this, having a balance of military power and knowledge in the portrait is a must. In the case of Marat, he has fought for his cause by being a martyr.

So why is each liberator portrayed the way they are? By portraying these men where their greatest achievements happened (sadly for Marat that was in the tub), it imposes upon future generations several traditions, one is that they should be scholars as well as military leaders and the other that they should lead without extravagance, as none of the liberators in the portrait are dressed very extravagantly. In dressing nicely but not with extravagance, they are showing that they are not wealthy aristocrats that have decided to seize power for themselves, but that they are citizens who have stepped up and wish to lead for the good of the people, not the gain of personal wealth.

I'm being long-winded, so I'll speed this next one up! The reason these revolutions need heroic figures is that every movement needs a figurehead, someone that can give tangibility to the cause. Without a leader, figurehead or tangibility, a cause would not be able to gain any ground or make any progress. As for what is heroic, I believe there is more than one element that answers that question. The first is personal sacrifice. They have risked their lives and imprisonment (or even death), and well as united people together for a cause. These are the actions that make these men heroes. As for their ideals, that is what makes these men possess heroic minds. By believing in freedom and the lack of corrupt government (whether their revolutions fixed that or not), just having the ideal and helping bring that ideal to life makes these men heroes.

6 Killer Appz? Perhaps...

After watching the TED Talk by Niall Ferguson I can certainly think of a few things to say. The first is that I think he simplified the points he was trying to make, perhaps because of the nature of TED Talks and that they are limited to 20 minutes. Overall though, I agree with what he had to say about the institutions that led to the "Great Divergence." The points he brought up about the U.S and U.K (and the rest of Europe too) were particularly stunning, especially in looking at the patent chart and the chart comparing work ethics in the U.S/ U.K with those in China. He defiantly hit points of what caused the West to advance over the East, but I believe he may have missed one. Never once did he bring up resources. Although he explained increasing military technology through the scientific technology, he never explained where the resources that built these ships, guns and made the bullets came from. Africa, for instance, has large stretches of land that are barren of resources that are useable, including water. So what effect did the availability of resources such as iron, water, wood (for ships) and paper have on these developing societies? Although he did say if I played this game I would loose... so maybe I am totally off. But I think that resources had to play a role in the advancement of technology and medicine... it's really hard to think with a dehydration headache or when you are really hungry. That and something has to make the products which are consumed in a consumer society. He defiantly hit on points that were important, I just think that missed some, and that oversimplifying thousands of years (and billions of people) into 6 categories might be a little too much in order to still be able to support his "thesis" if you will.

On the other hand, it is defiantly a wake up call for Americans to see how they are falling behind to China in almost every global comparison, and I think his remarks at the end of the video about the focus being placed on the E.U crisis and U.S debt crisis are defiantly interesting and deserve some thought. It in particular makes me think of rising gas prices, and a talk I heard on NPR once about how broadcasting rising gas prices was actually speeding up the increase of gas prices, I would if the same type of concept applies?

Too Much Sharing? Too Much Caring? Too Many Sultans?

 The period of global interdependence was, to say the least, a double-edged sword. Although exploring and finding sea routes and improved methods of trade between societies during this time opened up a world of economic opportunities for some societies, it destroyed others. Africa, for example, was ravished by the slave trade, which was largely supported by the availability of trans-Atlantic transportation and the need for cheap labor to work American plantations. At the same time, the development of capitalism in Europe lead to the development of joint-stock companies, which fueled economic growth and international trade out of Europe, although in the end would lead to bad news for American Native Americans. China saw a return to native rule and was then controlled by Manchus, with native Chinese culture intact, even preserved through struck laws and tightly regulated trade. It really must be seen as the time period that lay much of the history which we use to sculpt many of our modern laws and decisions, but also laid the foundations of wrongdoings that would resonate through to our recent history and in some sense even today. Overall, I think the time period of the origins of global interdependence was detrimental to society. During this period countries were torn apart, the slave trade accelerated out of control, dependancies on American foods were developed overseas (which lead to the continued slave trade), and population crisis began to form. Some these problems we still have to fix today. Trade is good and can bring prosperity, but I think in this time period it went horribly wrong and a dominant society that parasitized other societies formed and ran out of control.

A Little Too Much for One Chapter?

Although the logic between grouping the Safavids, Mughals and Ottomans together in the book is not to difficult to discern, it still struck me as a cumbersome way to present the information in those two chapters. Perhaps it was logical to group Islamic empires which arose during this time period, which is the reason (I believe) that these societies are presented together. Indeed it does seem to make sense when they begin drawing comparisons between the empires, but in initially getting the information across it made reading the chapter slightly confusing. Especially since some topics are addressed when talking about one empire, but then never again addressed when discussing another empire. Also, occasionally I found myself looking back to make sure I was still thinking about the right empire while reading, since the book would mash together the empires, or at least draw thin lines between them. Certainly when talking about topics such as religion and trade having them all in the same chapter made it easy to follow, it still left room for confusion. In all, I wasn't a huge fan, and I think that it was a bad decision, they could have grouped them together too, if they had set up the chapter in a different layout.

Oh Fabian...

In the expert from the book "Dues Destroyed" , Fabian leaves very little for the reader to misinterpret. As a matter of fact, the excerpt from the book can best be seen as a deliberate and systematic attack on Christianity and its doctrines. One of the main comparisons that Fabian draws is between the "barbaric" beliefs of Christian theology and the knowledge that the Buddhist doctrine possess. Fabian also brings an interesting point to the table, that Christians "value their lives less than trash." Here, Fabian has directly attacked the concept of being a martyr, one who dies for their faith. He also discusses how Christians had taken over other lands throughout the globe, specifically referencing the Philippines and Mexico. How they try to dismantle the beliefs of the natives, and claims that they are only able to convert those who they do because they are lands with "nature close to animal". Fabian's assertions may, in fact, not be incorrect either. Much of the converting that was done in Mexico was because of the diseases that the Spanish brought with them, and so the native peoples believed that the Spanish (Catholics) were correct in their beliefs, since they did not get sick, and converted to Christianity. Fabian also claims that Christian missionaries have no other goal than to destroy and manipulate the cultures that they encounter, tear them down and then "import their own." He argues that they must, in fact, tear down Buddhist belief, the Law of Buddha and Way of the Gods to bring in Christianity. Fabian's "Dues Destroyed" does really batter Christianity against a wall. He accuses Christian missionaries as government destroyers and Christian faithful as suicidal barbarians with no regard for their own lives. Fabian, however, paints Buddhism in a pure, clean and intelligent life that runs and moves society in the way of tradition and peace. He equates his years of following Christian doctrine with a mistake, and claims he gained new knowledge and destroyed the "wickedness" within him from the Christian doctrine by becoming a Buddhist. He says there is "little truth" in the Christian doctrine, and that he was glad to become a follower of the Buddhist faith.

Chapter 26 - The Good Stuff

This is a ShowMe I put together to look over the important topics in chapter 26 as well as some of the changes and similarities between Africa in the past and Africa now. This mostly discusses the slave trade and political changes in Africa and the impacts of trade and the slave trade.

Chapter 26 - The Good Stuff ShowMe