OMG AP History is Bad for America!!!!

               An Oklahoma state legislator wrote a bill, trying to ban AP US History, and this started a major national controversy. He is now rewriting it, but there is a high probability that it won't be the last word on this issue. Many critics of this AP class complain that it focuses too much on the negative side in America's history, and school boards want the class to promote American patriotism, instead of what they call "civil disorder." Besides those problems, there was also a major issue with "editing" history--in the new framework for the class, major events and historical figures, such as the Holocaust and George Washington, aren't mentioned at all. People have fired words such as "biased" and "inaccurate" about the new framework, regarding as to whether or not high schoolers should be given this curriculum of history.

               However, despite all of this negativity, there are still supporters of the new framework. Historians have risen to its defense, arguing that it better reflects America's "complex, unsettling, provocative and compelling" history--history in its most honest form. People also argue that the curriculum does not promote disobedience to the law, as it would be detrimental to the actual teaching of subjects such as the American Revolution. and the Civil Rights Movement. I think that the AP US History class should be taught accurately to history, and that it doesn't matter if the U.S. is painted in a good or bad light. After all, history is history, and if that's how history made a certain issue, nation, or person look, then that's how it should be.

THE AN INDUSTRAL RIVOLUSHUN

Europe:

1. What was the impact of European population growth on industry?
European population growth caused industry to expand rapidly because a large amount of creative inventors appeared, and the agricultural system became extremely productive and wealthy.

2. What were the results of the first organization of workers?
The first organization of workers achieved higher wages and shorter work days--from a demand of 12 hour work days to one of 10 hour work days.
            
3. Why did industry reach the Netherlands so relatively late?
Industry reached the Netherlands late because it was covered in a large number of waterways and lacked a sufficient amount of natural resources. These problems made it difficult to build up heavy industry and to construct railroads.
                  
Belgium:

4. How did Napoleon impact the development of industry in Belgium?
Napoleon affected Belgium's industry development in a positive way. He abolished old guilds and introduced freedom of trade.

5. Which industries developed in Belgium?  Why did those develop?
The textile industry boomed in Belgium because of a Briton who installed the first woolen spinning machine in the country, thus establishing the foundations for a textile boom. Canal building expanded because of the need for improvement in transportation. Railway building boomed as well.

6. How did infrastructure in Belgium improve?
The transportation system was greatly improved due to accelerated canal and railway building.
                                     
France:

7. What characteristics in France discouraged industrial innovation?  
France lacked natural resources such as iron and coal, which was very scarce.     

8. How did French social structures dictate which industries developed?
The French aristocracy wanted furniture, porcelain, leather goods, and silk, so those were the industries that developed most.

9. Which industries developed in France late? Why did it happen late?
The coal mining industry developed late due to coal scarcities and a longstanding, heavy reliance on timber.
   
Germany:

10. Why did industrial development occur late in Germany?
Germany was divided into a number of small states, and the traditional guild privileges had not been abolished.
                     
11. What was the impact of the German Customs Union?
The German Customs Union abolished trade barriers between states.
                          
12. In which industries did Germany become the leader in Europe?
Germany became the leader of mining, ironworks, steel, and railways industries.        

Great Britain:

13.  Which other industries developed because of the steam engine?
Textile, iron, coal, and railway industries expanded due to the development of the steam engine.
                         
Luxembourg:

14. How did Luxembourg benefit from German industrialization?
Luxembourg entered the German Customs Union, and its transportation communications system was improved.
      
15. Why were they so successful at producing iron?
They were successful at producing iron because they developed an improved iron-producing process, called the Minette ore.
                                      
Netherlands:

16. Was the Netherlands' economic success before industrialization something that helped industry develop or slowed development? Why?
The Netherlands' economic success before industrialization slowed development. This was because, since they were already successful, pre-mechanization, the sudden use of machines caused them to lose a lot of industries.

17. Which industries did develop in the Netherlands?
Textile mills, ironworks, coal, and steel developed in the Netherlands.
                                   
Norway:

18. What were the earliest industries in Norway?
The earliest industry in Norway was fishing, and early small factories produced soap, bricks, glass, iron, and beer.
                                           
19. How did water power development change Norway's economy?
Water development enabled Norway to  have eleven water power stations, and industries thrived on the cheap, mass-produced energy.
  
Spain:

20. What kinds of mining industries were successful in Spain? 
In Spain, iron, coal, cinnabar, mercury, copper, gold, silver, sulfur, and coal were successful mining industries.                   

Revolutions are SUPER DUPER FUN!!!

           The French and American Revolutions had many similarities, such as their beginnings which were due to civil unrest, and differences, such as the economic state each were in at the time of war. For example, in the French Revolution, they were not economically stable due to having just come out of the Seven Year's War, but in the American Revolution, the colonists were slightly more economically stable with their cash crops and plantations and such.

          A similarity between the revolutions is that they both arose because of injustice felt by the civilians. The monarchies were treating them inhumanly, violating what philosophers of the Enlightenment had stated as basic human rights. 

          A second similarity is that the civil unrest that caused both revolutions also stemmed from increased taxes. Different tax acts that the British government imposed on the colonies, as well as the join stock companies' monopolies, caused the colonists to have to unfairly pay high taxes on basic necessities. In France, heavy debt from the Seven Year's War caused taxes to have to be raised, and the people felt this was terrible and unjust. This affected both Britain and France.

          A third similarity is the conclusion of an official document at the end of each revolution. The American Revolution ended with the Constitution, and the French had their Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. They did this because they wanted a clear and official guide to how the reformed country would run, and to set down some firm, anti-tyranny rules.

          One difference between the revolutions is the economic stability of both countries during their revolutions. The French were suffering in a lot of debt from the Seven Year's War when they launched into the revolution, while the colonies were not. They had not participated in too many wars, and they were doing well with plantations, crops, and trade.

          Another difference is that during the French Revolution, the people with power--the nobility--revolted against the central control, but in the American Revolution, the people with a little more power were sided with the British government. The nobles in France hated the taxes being imposed and rebelled, but in America, the loyalists went against the poorer patriots.

          A difference that occurred sometime after the end of both revolutions is which directions of government each country took. After the American Revolution was over, a democracy was immediately put in place, and the Constitution was followed. However, after the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte came in and took over, turning the country into a dictatorship, while in America, George Washington eventually came to be President of a democracy by popular vote.

Ottoman Arts and Stuffs

Ottoman Art

          The Ottoman Turks were particularly well-known for their architecture, and they built a number of public buildings, mosques, and caravanserais--roadside inns for travelers--as well as keeping up with traditions such as calligraphy and miniature painting. Their decorative arts were famous too, and these included carpet weaving, jewelry making, paper marbling, and--special to their culture--Iznik ware ceramics. The Ottoman mosques and other architecture were first modeled off Byzantine styles, like the ones seen in the Hagia Sophia, and Ottomans were able to master the technique of creating large inner spaces that topped off with huge, vast domes, complete with tasteful articulations of light and shadow. There were numerous vaults, domes, square dome plans, slender corner minarets, and columns in their mosques, and this remained basically uniform throughout the empire. During the high classical period found in Turkey, the Balkans, Hungary, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, many mosques, bridges, fountains, and schools were built. A particular mosque with striking aesthetics is the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, which is flanked by four tall minarets and crowned by a monumental dome. The interior is lit by a number of tiny windows that caused the tiled walls to glitter. Miniature painting was a skill that involved a team of painters--the head painter designed the composition and his apprentices drew the contours and painted it in. Coloring was provided by ground powder pigments mixed with egg whites or diluted gum arabic. This resulted in vibrant, brilliant colors, the most common of which were bright red, green, and varying shades of blue. Paintings were stylized and abstract to aim towards an infinite and transcendent reality, although, as time progressed, they became more realistic due to influence from the European baroque and Rococo styles. Carpet weaving was particularly significant during this time, and they were used as decorative furnishings and for practical value, used on floors, walls, and doors which provided additional insulation. They were intricately knotted carpets made up of either silk or a combination of silk and cotton. The patterns on the carpets were most often full of religious symbols and other types of symbolism. Hereke silk carpets, made in the coastal town of Hereke, were the most valuable of Ottoman carpets due to fine weave and were typically used to furnish royal palaces. The Ottoman gold and silver smiths were renowned for their skill, able to make jewelry with complex designs and incorporate various Persian and Byzantine motifs in them. Their ceramics were also famous, particualrly Iznik pottery, which was produced in western Anatolia. It consisted of high quality pottery made of fritware and was painted cobalt blue under colorless lead glaze. Detailed designs combining Ottoman arabesque patterns with Chinese elements were made upon it.

Mughal Art

          Mughal Art was an eclectic style that was shaped by major influence from the European Renaissance, Persian sources, and Indian traditions. Its most significant contribution to the Indian subcontinent was architecture. Shah Jahan, the fifth emperor, brought about the golden age of Mughal architecture and arts, with the construction of many beautiful monuments--the Pearl Mosque, the Red fort, the Jama Masjid of Delhi, and the Lahore Fort. His most famous piece of architecture is known worldwide today--the Taj Mahal, built in memory of his third wife. It stands on a square plinth and is completely symmetrical, featuring an iwan--an arch-shaped doorway. The Taj Mahal is topped by a large dome and finial. Its basic elements are Persian in origin. The Taj Mahal's base structure is a large cube with many chambers and chamfered corners, basically forming an unequal octagon. Each side has a huge pishtaq (vaulted archway) which frames the iwan with two similar, arched balconies stacked on opposite sides. This motif is replicated on the chamfered corner areas, so the design is absolutely symmetrical on all sides of the building. Four minarets frame the tomb, with one on each corner of the plinth. They are facing the chamfered corners. However, the most spectacular feature of the Taj Mahal is its giant marble dome. Because of its shape, it is often referred to as an onion dome, or amrud (guava dome). Its shape is further emphasized by four smaller onion-domed kiosks, known as chattris, placed at its corners. The dome and chattris are topped by a gilded finial, and this finial is topped by a moon, which is an Islamic motif. The minarets were built to fall away from the tomb, in case of collapse, and constructed slightly outside the plinth. Mughal painting was a unique blend of Indian and Persian styles, with a combination of certain motifs, naturalistic effects, and structuring principles from both cultures, as well as from European Renaissance and Mannerist painting. The Mughals overthrew the Muslim tradition of miniature painting and developed their own. Soon, the Mughals delved into realistic painting, mostly centering around animals and plants. Memories and diaries of Mughal emperors depicted rich scenes from nature, court life, hunting, and battles, as well as portraits and portrayals of varying events.

Happy Birthday, le Magna Carta!!11!1!!!11!

Summary:

The Magna Carta was a treaty, designed to avert civil war and to take away some of King John's power. He had gone head to head with some powerful barons, and everyone was angry and threatening. However, King John was not wrongly accused of doing wrong: he expelled monks from Canterbury, alienated Pope Innocent III as well as many barons, spent too much money trying to keep his hold on France, and oppressed the people with his overpowering rule. Soon, faced with the threat of crumbling peace, a tumultuous country, and invasion, King John sued for peace with the Pope. This did not appease the barons, and there was a rebellion. Rebels fought and took over London, and King John FINALLY stopped being a stubborn butt and agreed to come to terms with them--terms that made up the Magna Carta. At the time, this document didn't seem all that important or revolutionary. It was ultimately a failure, and only a month later, King John asked for its annulation. The Pope agreed. Despite this failure at conception, overtime, it proved to be extremely significant in the shaping of history.It was used by radicals to portray themselves as conservatives, which was beneficial to their goals of rebelling and going against common beliefs. It also spoke directly to the Anglo-Saxon urge of justifying the past, using the present as evidence--changing everything around them, while turning a blind eye and faking complete normality. 

Questions:

1. OMG what was the king's hostage doing to her son??!!??!

• When the doors were finally opened to have their corpses removed, they realized that the woman had been chewing on her son's cheek. Gour-mom food. aha. aha.

2. At the time, what was England's relationship with its neighbors?

• It was rocky due to England becoming a oppressive, rogue nation, and countries such as France, Wales, Scotland, and Rome were planning on overthrowing England.

3. Why did King John agree to the Magna Carta?

• He agreed because there were rebels overtaking the country, and they had already gained ground in London.

4. What was the impact of the Magna Carta at the time?

• Nada. No impact. It was a failure at its conception because, of course, the King did not obey its commands and had it annulled after a month of its existence.

5. How did later kings use the charter to their advantage?

• William Marshal, successor to King John, led the royal troops into battle against the French and held victory over them. After this success, he reissued the Charter and turned it into "the monarchy's most powerful weapon." The former rebels did not have a cause to stand up for anymore, and the previously fervent rebellion died away. Later, Henry III reissued the Charter yet again, and most of the witnesses to it were, in face, former rebels.

6. How did Edward Coke revive the importance of the charter?

• Edward Coke and a group of others revived the Magna Carta, keen to show that they were traditionalists and not revolutionaries. He based his claims on the Magna Carta, and although some of them were complete nonsense, he was able to point out that the Magna Carta did establish the rightful limits of power on the monarchy. He was able to base the Petition of Rights off of the Magna Carta, which Charles I was forced to sign.

7. How did American colonial leaders use the Magna Carta?

• The Massachusetts Assembly used it to justify their protesting of the unfair taxes that British Parliament imposed upon them, saying it was "against the Magna Carta..." The First Continental Congress also justified their rebellion with the Magna Carta, saying that what they were doing was parallel to what past Englishmen had done to assert their liberties. The American Bill of Rights also bares striking similarities to certain parts of the Magna Carta.

8. Why is the Magna Carta more important to modern Americans     
than to the British?

• It has been able to shape American history more heavily than it has British history. References to it are made all the time in modern-day legal cases all over America, and it is highly codified in jury instructions.

Failed Colonies in the Americas! We all LOVE FAILURE!

Fort Caroline


1.    What insights do you gain from comparing the French and Spanish accounts of the 1565 attack?

The French account was that all their men were off somewhere else, unable to fight, and they were only left with women and slaves. The Spanish account was much more positive since they won, and they also brought God into their reasoning.

2.    How do they decide what is ethically and politically acceptable in their actions and in the actions of their enemies?

The Spanish were pretty religious and quoted the Bible, saying “triumph which our Lord has granted us, and which will be the means of the holy Gospel being introduced into this country” and their purpose was to be “enlightened by the Holy Spirit.” They executed all the Lutheran captives because they believed the Lutherans to be from the devil; if captives were Roman Catholic, they were spared.

Fort Caroline and Ajacan


3.    What do the settlers see as the strengths and weaknesses of their colonies?

Famine and death were major problems, and weather crippled them greatly. A small strength was that they could convert natives.

4.    Which do they ascribe to external factors? To themselves?

External factors were weather, geography, and the natives. They, however, had a lack of food and struggled to stay alive.

5.    Evaluate the colonists' planning for the settlements. How do they adapt to unforeseen problems?

They didn’t really plan at all, and they ran out of food after awhile. Then, they couldn’t get anymore because they had been refused funding. Negotiating with Indians helped, however.

6.    How did colonists' relationships with the Indians affect their fate?

The Indians had helped the colonists with getting food and such, but when the Indians wanted something in return, the colonists had nothing. This led to the Indians having negative perspectives and opinions on the colonists.

7.    How did their perception of the natural environment affect their fate?

Their perception of the natural environment was wrong, and it surprised them a lot, making it hard for them to adjust. The winter was harsh and killed a lot of colonists.

8.    How did the leadership in each colony affect its fate?

The colonies needed strong, reliable leadership or else it would fail, resources would be wasted, and capture would be inevitable.

9.    What is critical for a successful colony?

Food, water, shelter, resources, good relationships with the natives, and survival/defense are critical.

Fort Caroline and Roanoke


10. To what extent did the colonists prepare for failure?

The colonists were pretty much like, “Failure? What’s that? Pshhh, not us.” They were wrong and so so unprepared.

11. How did the colonies end?

They were either destroyed by Indians or blended in with Indians. Either way, the colonies’ ends involved Indians.

12. How might these accounts differ from those of successful colonies?

Successful colonies further developed and were successful, with no capturing involved.

Fort Caroline, Ajacan, and Roanoke


13. What might have saved these colonies?

More abundant resources and better planning skills might have saved them.

14. What might a prospective settler learn from these documents?

They might learn to plan ahead and what to not-do.

15. How did European rivalries affect the fate of these colonies?

European rivalries caused everyone to hate each other, so there were a bunch of conflicts. They ended up conquering and destroying each other.

English Civil Wars

     The execution of King Charles I was an act committed by a small minority of the English Parliament. Most had been reluctant to do this, and it was a desperate measure. Parliament was more or less corrupted, and a majority of its members were never actually present. When the House of Commons was purged, only a small handful of people was there when the sentence was passed and an even smaller number signed the death warrant. 

     Despite this reluctance, the king was apparently ungodly and could not hold the peace within his country, according to the supporters of his execution--of which there were few. Among the supporters were Puritans, who used the Bible as guidelines for politics and religion.The Bible taught that authority should always be obeyed, but there were a number of cases in it where authority had been overthrown for being unmoral. A preacher, John Durant, launched a petition against the king, which called for justice, and when the king released a book called the Book of Sports, it received negative attention and criticism. Another important, but pretentious, person who died was major-general Thomas Harrison. He was killed during the Reformation, and had many claims that he was the equal of Christ. He even said that he'd suffered similar to Christ.

     Charles's way of ruling had resulted in a vast issue of corruption and moral decay in the government. England was a monarchical republic by the time Queen Elizabeth came to rule, and she didn't even have that much power. Instead, she was considered an "accountable office." The regicide was caused by civil war, heavy taxation, suffering and death, and a widespread desire for peace. Parliament themselves had to execute Charles I, and provided some real basis for his death. He was charged upon committing crimes against the people and England's laws, and was sentenced to death on January 4, 1649.