How the test went

Overall I thought I did pretty well on the test. Compared to the tests we have in class the multiple choice part was a lot easier. There was a couple that I was unsure about but overall I think I did pretty well. When I saw the dbq question I just burst out laughing because of the subject. When I was doing the dbq I kinda started stressing cause it took a long time. But once I got to the other two I sped right through them and I felt relieved that it was finally done. Overall I think I did a pretty good job and I am so happy it is finally over.

Communist Manifesto! That's fun to say...Manifesto!

Pros:
1. Equal obligation of all to work. Everyone pitches in and does their part for society. Their is not more burden on one person than another, so no one becomes angered about unfair labor.
2. Every child in public school is entitled to an equal and free education. Children are also taken away from the factory environment and are focused more on their education.
3. Abolition of Bourgeois property. Everyone is at the same place in society and not one person is ahead of the other. Everyone is equal!
4. Centralization of credit in the banks. State has control of everyone's money and makes sure that no one person becomes richer to an unfair extent than the other. Also centralizes government as a whole. All of the state's money is in one place.
Cons:
1. High income taxes. The government is already standardizing everyone's income, taxing people high could cause revolt.
2. Combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries. Too much for one combination. Also two very different areas of production to be grouping together.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. No sense of family values. Money that would be inherited just flows back into the government and this could anger people.
4. Abolition of property and land goes to public service. No one has a sense of ownership or their own land. I feel like if everyone were to own an equal part of land it would be better than having the government own it all.

Leaders in Paintings...what else is new?

One of the main things in these portraits that we observed in class and that I also noticed at home was the presence of scholarly items, such as books, quills, or constitutions. This emphasizes how they were all thought of as educated and intelligent by the people they led and the artists that portrayed them. Also, along with high thoughts of their education, the artists also portrayed the leader's strength and warlike skills using swords in almost all of the paintings with the exception of one. The artists use qualities such as intelligence and education as well as distinct facial expressions to portray these people a certain way. An example of this is George Washington's content and calm nature or Murat's arrogant smile that show their pride of their winnings. By making these leaders look so proud and triumphant the artists have created a picture of what a good leader should look like, making all leaders from then on try to live up their standards. For example, George Washington's look carried on in almost all of his successors. The majority were white, educated, middle aged men. I think that revolutions such as the ones led by these leaders need a strong heroic figure because they take the "rebellion" factor out of the revolution and insert a liberating and justified factor into it. Because these leaders are portrayed as such honorable and heroic figures, I believe the artists are representing the opinions of the people throughout the revolutions that these leaders were apart of.

TED Talk

After watching the Ted talk I have to say I was very interested by what Niall Ferguson had to say. He went beyond the realms of formal and concrete thought and used a device we all know as an example to propose his idea...the smartphone. His whole lecture was about how Westerners became more prosperous than people of the east, and it did not end up this way because of empire or geography. He made his conclusion based on six things, which he calls the killer apps: competition, the scientific revolution, property rights, modern medicine, the consumer society, and the work ethic. I would have to agree with Ferguson's point of view because Europe was divided into very different empires in a small amount of space, while Easterners had very large amounts of space under one Empire. This created diversity and competition in Europe, which was not present in the east. Everyone had to fight to make a living and to own land which increase emphasis on the points of property rights and work ethic. In the east, the government controlled land ownership, income, and even testing for job placement so there was no competition, people just did what hey had to. After Ferguson then presents his belief as to why the West developed faster during what he calls "The Great Divergence", he brings up the issue that the east has entered back into the race again, and they are going for the win. He also mentions that the American who was 20 times richer than the easterner years ago is now only 5 times richer due to an increase in their work ethic and a decline in the West's. Even more scary, he says by 2016 China will top the U.S. for number one economy in the world. Overall, I believe he brings up some very good points and signals for the east to take action!

Ottoman, Safavids, Mughals and other stuff...

I believe the authors of this textbook put the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals together in one chapter because of their common heritage. They all descended from Turkish nomads and they all followed the Islamic faith. However I don't think this was the best idea because there is a lot of bouncing back and forth between each empire and it becomes hard to follow and keep a clear train of thought. Also if each empire were to have its own chapter, we would be able to learn more about them as a whole rather than how they compared to the other societies.

I think this period of global interaction (1500-1800) was beneficial to the people involved. Societies across the world were changing for the better due to certain technological advances because of exchanges amongst different cultures. The only bad thing I took out of the several readings was the growth of slavery during this period of global interaction. Although in our society today we perceive slavery as a bad thing because of the racism that was coupled with it, during this time frame it increased labor. Overall the worldwide exchanges in this time frame helped create a boom in creativity and innovation and it was truly beneficial to the societies and people involved.

Links to xtranormal videos

This is the link to the video of Tokagawa and Daiymo:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13183730

This is the link to the video of Tokagawa and the Samuri:

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13183680

Fabian Fucan and his Issues With Christianity

Well, to say Fabian Fucan hates Christianity is an understatement. He laments the fact the he converted and left the faith of Buddhism, which he is now following again. Fucan uses religious, cultural, historical, political, and social aspects to attack Christianity. Fucan states that Japan is the land of the gods. He also goes onto say that these gods protect their land, taking a direct shot at Deus(the Latin word for the Christian god). This statement includes both religious and cultural aspect because it addresses the religions gods and customs. Fucan also mentions that the Jesuits are trying to destroy Buddhism during their conquests and gain control of Luzon and Nova Hispania, which are the modern day Philippines and Mexico.this attacks the historical and political aspects of Christianity. Lastly, he attacks the social aspects of Christianity because he says that Buddhism is too strong to be taken over by Christianity. He says that unless the Christians are willing to invade they will not succeed in converting people. Overall, he is not a fan of Christianity and considers it a corrupt religion.