Monday, June 18, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Leadership
The required leadership to guide the colonist through a revolution was more than just one man could handle. It was determined by many historically named men, who stood up for their rights and declared their right to freedom. These men had courage, intelligence, and a very large ego. Many were bias and even contradicted each other on the matter of revolution. However, they were able to collaborate in one of the most finest ways in history. There had been many who were part of the revolution, but there were four who stood out in history. According to Joseph Ellis in his novel Founding Brothers, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were those men.
Although when it came to the bias and contradiction, two of those names stand out above of all the others. Adams and Jefferson were complete opposites in the sense that, they disagrees about everything. As Joseph Ellis puts it, "they were an incongruous pair... the Yankee and the cavalier, the orator and the writer, the bulldog and the greyhound..." They were like the first democrat and republican in America. Jefferson being the democrat and Adams the republican; Jefferson is a self contained man whose idea of a debate was that it was a "violation of the natural harmonies," when Adams' idea of a debate was a ruthless argument. They were different, they don't even debate in the same way. So how could it be that two different types of people, within a government, are able to work out many different problems without causing anarchy and loss of the democracy itself? They give some and lose some. It is a matter of giving up one idea for one you think is better. This creates a well balanced government, of which will last for many years to come.
Leadership is something that needs a certain characteristic that one man can not possess. To be a good leader you have to be open to new idea's and not hold on to the power of leadership. To be a good leader you have to accept the reality that you can't be there forever. This quality, although very minuscule has a great effect on the people. When George Washington became president of the United States of America, he knew he wouldn't be there forever. Four years pass and Washington declared his resignation of office. Thus proving that George was not an advocate for his own prosperity.
However, a major characteristic that was needed was the intelligence that one man possessed. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent of the founding brothers. He had a way with words that no one else could match. Overall, Jefferson had the confidence that he will be remembered. When Jefferson was on his deathbed, he whispered "Jefferson still lives" (Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers). By this Jefferson's ego sought to tell him that his would be remembered throughout the ages.
As you can see, there were many characteristics that were required for the revolution and one man can not have all those qualities. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson collaborated in a way that no other group of people had before them. They, in times of futile disagreement and war, were able to come to many agreements through contradiction and bias ideas. Though it came to many times were their disagreements may have overcome their need for freedom, they pulled through. They declared their right to be free and have a democratic government; christened The United States of America.
Although when it came to the bias and contradiction, two of those names stand out above of all the others. Adams and Jefferson were complete opposites in the sense that, they disagrees about everything. As Joseph Ellis puts it, "they were an incongruous pair... the Yankee and the cavalier, the orator and the writer, the bulldog and the greyhound..." They were like the first democrat and republican in America. Jefferson being the democrat and Adams the republican; Jefferson is a self contained man whose idea of a debate was that it was a "violation of the natural harmonies," when Adams' idea of a debate was a ruthless argument. They were different, they don't even debate in the same way. So how could it be that two different types of people, within a government, are able to work out many different problems without causing anarchy and loss of the democracy itself? They give some and lose some. It is a matter of giving up one idea for one you think is better. This creates a well balanced government, of which will last for many years to come.
Leadership is something that needs a certain characteristic that one man can not possess. To be a good leader you have to be open to new idea's and not hold on to the power of leadership. To be a good leader you have to accept the reality that you can't be there forever. This quality, although very minuscule has a great effect on the people. When George Washington became president of the United States of America, he knew he wouldn't be there forever. Four years pass and Washington declared his resignation of office. Thus proving that George was not an advocate for his own prosperity.
However, a major characteristic that was needed was the intelligence that one man possessed. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent of the founding brothers. He had a way with words that no one else could match. Overall, Jefferson had the confidence that he will be remembered. When Jefferson was on his deathbed, he whispered "Jefferson still lives" (Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers). By this Jefferson's ego sought to tell him that his would be remembered throughout the ages.
As you can see, there were many characteristics that were required for the revolution and one man can not have all those qualities. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson collaborated in a way that no other group of people had before them. They, in times of futile disagreement and war, were able to come to many agreements through contradiction and bias ideas. Though it came to many times were their disagreements may have overcome their need for freedom, they pulled through. They declared their right to be free and have a democratic government; christened The United States of America.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Perplexity
Why do we Americans seem to blame others for our misfortunes? We have done it since the start of our country. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed by the Founding Brothers of the United States of America. They signed to remove themselves from the King and depart on there own, with their new idea of a government.
Notice how in the Declareation of Independence it states that "...the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States..." This shows how the colonists blamed just one man for the "repeated injuries and usurpations."
Why just one man? Why not blame the country? Instead, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the King was "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Thus, saying that he was not ready to be a ruler of the people who want him to "...Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good..."
A ruler who wanted what was best him and not for the people was not who they wanted to rule America. The most perplexing thing about the Declaration of Independence is how they stated that "Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us... They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends." Even though they state that their brittish brethren have unwarrantable jurisdiction or unwanted authority over the colonists. They refered to their "enemy in war" as their brethren. Why? We declared war on them, yet we call them our brothers? Was this to make all the people of the war seem to be innocent and the King seem evil? This may have been a great way to persuade the people or it could have been one that slowed the revolution down. This is perplexity, in the sense that we are uncertain of what was really meant by this. Maybe the colonist blamed the whole country. Maybe they really dud think it was the King. Either way, they were able to stray from the Brittish and establish a well working government. We succeeded in are Independence, but failed to point the gun at the people but only at the King. The question is why...
----The following video is narrated by Robin Shields on the Library of Congress website.---
About The Video:
"Robin Shields discusses the American Declaration of Independence, focusing on its distribution through early American newspapers. Fifteen newspapers containing the Declaration from the Library of Congress' Serial and Government Publication Division's American newspaper collection are profiled. Shields highlights the importance of newspapers for the success of the American Revolution and the influence newspaper printers had on the independence movement."(Library of Congress)
Watch this video
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Propaganda Project
For my Propaganda Project I'm planing on doing a few commercials on aternative fuels. I will do one that relates to global warming, one that relates to how it would affect the war, and a final one on which way would be most economical. I will use resorse such as books on different fuels and the wall street journal which has many articles on fuel today.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
John Hancock
The Sons of Liberty
May 6, 2007
“At the risk of our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence as the President of the Continental Congress. According to the Famous Signers of the Declaration by Dorothy Horton McGee, he put the largest fortune in America and his own honor on the line for “his native land.” John Hancock followed in his uncle’s footsteps and took over his uncle’s business when he got older. This one man, with his great fortune, was risked by one tax that was forced on him and other businessmen by the English.
Graduating from Harvard in 1754, John Hancock entered his uncle’s firm as a clerk. In 1760, his uncle was so impressed by his work that Hancock was sent to represent the business house in London. “Having had long Experience of his Uprightness & great Abilities for Business…” Hancock’s uncle’s spoke of him when he hired him on January 1, 1763 as a partner of the firm of importers, merchants and ship owners. Yet, this partnership did not last very long, for Thomas Hancock died and left his great fortune to John Hancock on August 1, 1764. More than a year later, John Hancock was named the selectman of Boston, as his uncle was before
him.
The Stamp Act was founded in 1765; it was made so they would needed a special stamp to make any document a “legal” document, thus when anything was sold, traded, or shipped; the proof of legality would have to be a stamped document. This would cost the businessmen much more money. Also, many did not feel that it was a viable act and didn’t abide by it. For instance, John Hancock sailed the Boston Packet in the middle of December without the legal stamp, and all the cargo was taken and was used to pay the Royal Officers in support of the British East India Company.
“It is a Cruel hardship upon us & unless we are Redressed we must be Ruin’d…” John Hancock was trying to promote the expulsion of the Stamp Act, for its “fatal Effects of these Grievances you will Sensibly feel; our Trade must decay...” A month later Hancock was writing the protest of the Stamp Act and within this document he wrote of how this act weakens “the best Security of our Lives Libertys and Estates…” This “Cruel Act” and submits him and the commerce to what he referred to as “Slavery.”
With the help of “The Sons of Liberty,” John Hancock was able to enforce his boycotts and persuade the people to revolt against England. This in turn, led to the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. On this day, the colonials threw three hundred and forty chests of tea valued at ten thousand British pounds (back in 1773), hitting England where it hurts the most. England had finally received the message that the colonists were not going to follow by their rules for any longer.
Throughout the many battles with the English, New England was successful in their revolt for freedom from England. The “Sons of Liberty” were able to prevent the English from controlling the New England ports and governments. On July 4, 1776, the most historical name in history was signed on the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock signed the document that would save his life, fortune, and sacred honor or would have sentence him and New England to live a future of intolerable taxes and acts by the rule of one.
May 6, 2007
“At the risk of our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence as the President of the Continental Congress. According to the Famous Signers of the Declaration by Dorothy Horton McGee, he put the largest fortune in America and his own honor on the line for “his native land.” John Hancock followed in his uncle’s footsteps and took over his uncle’s business when he got older. This one man, with his great fortune, was risked by one tax that was forced on him and other businessmen by the English.
Graduating from Harvard in 1754, John Hancock entered his uncle’s firm as a clerk. In 1760, his uncle was so impressed by his work that Hancock was sent to represent the business house in London. “Having had long Experience of his Uprightness & great Abilities for Business…” Hancock’s uncle’s spoke of him when he hired him on January 1, 1763 as a partner of the firm of importers, merchants and ship owners. Yet, this partnership did not last very long, for Thomas Hancock died and left his great fortune to John Hancock on August 1, 1764. More than a year later, John Hancock was named the selectman of Boston, as his uncle was before
him.
The Stamp Act was founded in 1765; it was made so they would needed a special stamp to make any document a “legal” document, thus when anything was sold, traded, or shipped; the proof of legality would have to be a stamped document. This would cost the businessmen much more money. Also, many did not feel that it was a viable act and didn’t abide by it. For instance, John Hancock sailed the Boston Packet in the middle of December without the legal stamp, and all the cargo was taken and was used to pay the Royal Officers in support of the British East India Company.
“It is a Cruel hardship upon us & unless we are Redressed we must be Ruin’d…” John Hancock was trying to promote the expulsion of the Stamp Act, for its “fatal Effects of these Grievances you will Sensibly feel; our Trade must decay...” A month later Hancock was writing the protest of the Stamp Act and within this document he wrote of how this act weakens “the best Security of our Lives Libertys and Estates…” This “Cruel Act” and submits him and the commerce to what he referred to as “Slavery.”
With the help of “The Sons of Liberty,” John Hancock was able to enforce his boycotts and persuade the people to revolt against England. This in turn, led to the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. On this day, the colonials threw three hundred and forty chests of tea valued at ten thousand British pounds (back in 1773), hitting England where it hurts the most. England had finally received the message that the colonists were not going to follow by their rules for any longer.
Throughout the many battles with the English, New England was successful in their revolt for freedom from England. The “Sons of Liberty” were able to prevent the English from controlling the New England ports and governments. On July 4, 1776, the most historical name in history was signed on the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock signed the document that would save his life, fortune, and sacred honor or would have sentence him and New England to live a future of intolerable taxes and acts by the rule of one.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
John Hancock Essay
The question that I would like to focus on within my essay is how John Hancock was effected by the taxes and how he conspired to revolt against the King. The focus will be on what did he do, when did he do it, where did he do it, how did he accomblish it, and with whom did he conspired with.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
The Theme Throughout All of History
The past will always tell what will happen in the future. There will be wars, death, crime, and even hatred between the people. If it happens once, it will happen again. I speak even before humans could even speak. Before, there was only one species of humans. Hundreds of thousands of years in the past there were the Homo sapiens and the Homo erectus. These two species were different in many ways. For instance, the Homo sapiens are the modern man who can adapt more easily and were much smarter than the Homo erectus (the upright man). They lived in the same period and when they came into contact, they fought over the land. The modern man won because he was superior to the Homo erectus in speed and agility.
On the contrary, they were not much different. Homo erectus had developed ways to use tools and were as much advanced as the Homo sapiens, but lacked the social aspect to modern life. What I am trying to say is that, before humans had developed a written language, there were conflicts between them of who was more superior to the other. Thus, when you look back to the American Indian Wars, there seems to be a direct relationship to the fighting and turmoil.
The Europeans had to think of them as not human, to make them seem characterless, that way they would have no regrets to conquer them. There was many-recorded writing about the Native Americans on whether they were minor farmers or if they were great farmers who brought great surplus. In addition, there was some on how the Native Americans were so hostile that they would kill and scalp n enemy just to become a man, when some writing spoke of how they were perfect and did not kill. Both of them are very wrong, but together post a real aspect to the Natives world, i.e., if the Natives had killed their enemies, there would be no more culture because there would be no people to support it. Also, if they did not kill how would they have protected their lands from others (like the Europeans) and feed their people? In addition, if the Natives were such bad farmers how could they have fed and taught the Pilgrims how to farm on a day we celebrate? Also, if they were such great farmers and took up so much land with the farming, why did the Native Americans still have to scavenge for food? The reality portrayed on the Native Americans is skewed in both ways. The truth is not one of the other, but lies between the two.
On the contrary, they were not much different. Homo erectus had developed ways to use tools and were as much advanced as the Homo sapiens, but lacked the social aspect to modern life. What I am trying to say is that, before humans had developed a written language, there were conflicts between them of who was more superior to the other. Thus, when you look back to the American Indian Wars, there seems to be a direct relationship to the fighting and turmoil.
The Europeans had to think of them as not human, to make them seem characterless, that way they would have no regrets to conquer them. There was many-recorded writing about the Native Americans on whether they were minor farmers or if they were great farmers who brought great surplus. In addition, there was some on how the Native Americans were so hostile that they would kill and scalp n enemy just to become a man, when some writing spoke of how they were perfect and did not kill. Both of them are very wrong, but together post a real aspect to the Natives world, i.e., if the Natives had killed their enemies, there would be no more culture because there would be no people to support it. Also, if they did not kill how would they have protected their lands from others (like the Europeans) and feed their people? In addition, if the Natives were such bad farmers how could they have fed and taught the Pilgrims how to farm on a day we celebrate? Also, if they were such great farmers and took up so much land with the farming, why did the Native Americans still have to scavenge for food? The reality portrayed on the Native Americans is skewed in both ways. The truth is not one of the other, but lies between the two.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Native Americans vs. Europeans
Dance and story telling was the greatest influence of the culture of the Native Americans. When you look to how they survived through the eras without the Europeans, you realize that their forms of teaching and remembering their past was very fragile. The Native Americans learned by the hand of their ancestors who pasted their stories on to their children, who past it on to their children, and so on. Yet, when one of the family member are killed who teach the young all of the secrets to living, the entire colony and culture starts to collapse.
The mystical function was a large influence on an individual in the Native culture. They would be taught that they have spiritual power, which if you find, may change you life in many great ways. They also thought that nature is very mystical to them. When they would sacrifice an animal to feed their family they would show gratitude toward the animal, who gave its life, by dance or song. These spiritual rituals would be taught by the elders and without this knowledge they couldn't carry on the religion and culture. Thus, when they met the Europeans, they lost a lot of their culture.
When the Europeans came over and started to have consistent contact to the Natives, they found that their are many cultural differences between them. The Europeans believed heavily on the scientific path, but with a belief in one god. God, is that spiritual part of the their lives, but when they go home to eat, they didn't give thanks to the animal, but God. Whom they believe let them have the chance to eat a great meal.
In summary, they had some conflicts that hurt their relationship. When the Europeans came over, they started to clear land and kill animals like it was nothing. This is because the Europeans believe that killing animals and clearing land for large homes wasn't against what God wanted. Yet, the Natives saw this as blasphemy and were mad that they were doing such evils. Also, the Natives were taken as slaves by the Europeans, and the Native that fought, died. Thus, this starting a great conflict that would end the cultures of thousands of the Natives tribes. Because of the greediness of the Europeans, they started to ask for gold and other minerals that the Natives didn't have. This was impossible for the Natives, not only because they couldn't speak English but they literally didn't have what the Europeans were asking for. But, when the Europeans didn't get what they wanted, they would kill the Native Americans.
This was bad. Like was stated above, when the elders die, the culture dies. Now, that millions of the Natives are dead or dying, they are taking with them, the culture.
In conclusion, conflict and violence was, undoubtedly, inevitable. The Europeans were very wealth driven. They wanted to find the fastest and most economical way to make money. That said, if anything got in their way, they would find a way around or resort to fighting their way through. This causing the great conflict between the two cultures and causing the demise of the Native Americans elders. By the end of this war, it was estimated that millions of Natives were killed because of one nations greed, but the worst of it was shown through the massacre at Wounded Knee. The Seventh Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children out of spite, not for defense. Thus, showing that violence can not be avoided in some cases because some people have their mind on one thing. When it comes between morals and what they want, both of the cultures were for what was best for them, instead of who gets hurt in the process.
The mystical function was a large influence on an individual in the Native culture. They would be taught that they have spiritual power, which if you find, may change you life in many great ways. They also thought that nature is very mystical to them. When they would sacrifice an animal to feed their family they would show gratitude toward the animal, who gave its life, by dance or song. These spiritual rituals would be taught by the elders and without this knowledge they couldn't carry on the religion and culture. Thus, when they met the Europeans, they lost a lot of their culture.
When the Europeans came over and started to have consistent contact to the Natives, they found that their are many cultural differences between them. The Europeans believed heavily on the scientific path, but with a belief in one god. God, is that spiritual part of the their lives, but when they go home to eat, they didn't give thanks to the animal, but God. Whom they believe let them have the chance to eat a great meal.
In summary, they had some conflicts that hurt their relationship. When the Europeans came over, they started to clear land and kill animals like it was nothing. This is because the Europeans believe that killing animals and clearing land for large homes wasn't against what God wanted. Yet, the Natives saw this as blasphemy and were mad that they were doing such evils. Also, the Natives were taken as slaves by the Europeans, and the Native that fought, died. Thus, this starting a great conflict that would end the cultures of thousands of the Natives tribes. Because of the greediness of the Europeans, they started to ask for gold and other minerals that the Natives didn't have. This was impossible for the Natives, not only because they couldn't speak English but they literally didn't have what the Europeans were asking for. But, when the Europeans didn't get what they wanted, they would kill the Native Americans.
This was bad. Like was stated above, when the elders die, the culture dies. Now, that millions of the Natives are dead or dying, they are taking with them, the culture.
In conclusion, conflict and violence was, undoubtedly, inevitable. The Europeans were very wealth driven. They wanted to find the fastest and most economical way to make money. That said, if anything got in their way, they would find a way around or resort to fighting their way through. This causing the great conflict between the two cultures and causing the demise of the Native Americans elders. By the end of this war, it was estimated that millions of Natives were killed because of one nations greed, but the worst of it was shown through the massacre at Wounded Knee. The Seventh Cavalry killed hundreds of women and children out of spite, not for defense. Thus, showing that violence can not be avoided in some cases because some people have their mind on one thing. When it comes between morals and what they want, both of the cultures were for what was best for them, instead of who gets hurt in the process.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Accepted
Acceptance today is like asking someone what they like to eat. They will tell you that if they don't like it, they won't eat it. That's how society is today. If they don't like something about you, then they will try to avoid you. That's how people have come to think of everything. But, is there a difference between accepting something or just tolerating it?
Look at the homeless that we have in our country. Do you think people accept or tolerate them. Hard question to answer isn't it? Truly, everyone is tolerating them. When people walk by and hand them spare change, they no it's not going to change their lives. Twenty cents can't start a life over, but no one is going to say that to their face. Most likely they have gone through very tough times and still can't dig out of the hole they're in. Yet, people do go around and say that the homeless are doing what best for them, do you?
That's the difference between acceptance and tolerance. The bigger question is do we accept or tolerate beliefs? Once again, it is that our society today and long before only tolerate beliefs. If you ask any Christian if they accept anything that's against their religion, they will say no. But, do they tolerate it? If they didn't how would they survive in our world today?
Look at the homeless that we have in our country. Do you think people accept or tolerate them. Hard question to answer isn't it? Truly, everyone is tolerating them. When people walk by and hand them spare change, they no it's not going to change their lives. Twenty cents can't start a life over, but no one is going to say that to their face. Most likely they have gone through very tough times and still can't dig out of the hole they're in. Yet, people do go around and say that the homeless are doing what best for them, do you?
That's the difference between acceptance and tolerance. The bigger question is do we accept or tolerate beliefs? Once again, it is that our society today and long before only tolerate beliefs. If you ask any Christian if they accept anything that's against their religion, they will say no. But, do they tolerate it? If they didn't how would they survive in our world today?
Thursday, February 1, 2007
MYTH
When Campbell spoke of what a Myth was it gave me the impression that a Myth isn't something that could have happened, but will happen. After reading about what he had to say i have come up with my own logical reasoning for what really is a Myth.
The definition of a Myth is a legendary story that usually involves a hero and his or her adventure with no real facts or a natural explanation for it. Yet, Campbell explained a Myth as an experience of life that may change your perspective on how you live your life. When you tell your story, many may not believe it. For instance, an old fisherman who spoke of a big fish that was as big as his leg that when he caught, he let go. Many people didn't believe him and didn't take any look at if he was right or not. Some went searching for this fish. Many probably would give up early, but there would always be that one who would try to find this fish, and he or she would be that lucky one to find this mysterious fish that was as big as a mans leg. You search for this fish thinking in the back of your head that this fish doesn't exist and that the old man is crazy. Then you caught him, and you reel him in. Then what do you do. You have proved that the Myth of one man is correct and that the fish was beautiful and majestic. You would think to yourself about if it's worth it to kill something so great to achieve so little. Soon, you will find yourself back on shore. You won't have any proof that the big fish is real, except your experience. Your experience that proved to you that you shouldn't sacrifice a life, to accomplish nothing.
You now know that the fish is real and you tell it to everyone. Soon, you are the old man who tells the story to a young one, who thinks your crazy, but walks away towards that same lake you were at, carrying a fishing poll...
The definition of a Myth is a legendary story that usually involves a hero and his or her adventure with no real facts or a natural explanation for it. Yet, Campbell explained a Myth as an experience of life that may change your perspective on how you live your life. When you tell your story, many may not believe it. For instance, an old fisherman who spoke of a big fish that was as big as his leg that when he caught, he let go. Many people didn't believe him and didn't take any look at if he was right or not. Some went searching for this fish. Many probably would give up early, but there would always be that one who would try to find this fish, and he or she would be that lucky one to find this mysterious fish that was as big as a mans leg. You search for this fish thinking in the back of your head that this fish doesn't exist and that the old man is crazy. Then you caught him, and you reel him in. Then what do you do. You have proved that the Myth of one man is correct and that the fish was beautiful and majestic. You would think to yourself about if it's worth it to kill something so great to achieve so little. Soon, you will find yourself back on shore. You won't have any proof that the big fish is real, except your experience. Your experience that proved to you that you shouldn't sacrifice a life, to accomplish nothing.
You now know that the fish is real and you tell it to everyone. Soon, you are the old man who tells the story to a young one, who thinks your crazy, but walks away towards that same lake you were at, carrying a fishing poll...
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Native Americans vs. Indians
When someone speaks of an 'Indian', many people, not all, think of the who originated living on the land,i.e., America. Why don't we call them 'Native Americans'? They are native to America, but it wasn't America when they were first living here. It was just land on which they resided on. Yet, we call them 'Indians'! Why? Because a very long time ago, 1492, one man found land with people living on it. Believing that it was India. Thus, he, being Columbus, made a huge mistake in calling them Indians. Because of one seemingly impetuous man, the Natives of the land were unwillingly daubed Indians.
I don't believe that because of one mans carelessness and inhumanity one group of people had to suffer. I think that when it was proven that the natives were not from India, then they should have recant the old name and replace it with a more politically correct name. One that wouldn't offend anyone. Also, I believe that the way the people were treated because of how they were different, was very uncivilized.
The final 'Massacre' of the Indian Wars that involved the U.S. Seventh cavalry and the Lakota Sioux at 'Wounded Knee'. The Sioux had put up a peace flag at their camp, but the army set up their guns despite it. They aimed it at the tribe which included 120 men with 230 women and children. Those numbers dropped when an accidental shot was fire when a gun was dropped. This gun shot startled the cavalry and they fired all of their guns. They ended up killing over 15o men women and children, while wounding 50.
In short, I believe that what happened at 'Wounded Knee' was an example of how people can't except something new and take their actions to the extreme. Throughout all of history people have been discriminating against people for how they look compared to the majority of the people. For instance, Africa Americans used to be enslaved because they were not white like the people who came their. Then, they revolted and one excepted as equals today. African Americans were also given names because of how they looked, and not who they really were. Thus, if we had only judged the people for who they were and not how they looked they we might not have had all of the civil wars, for everyone would have be known as equals.
I don't believe that because of one mans carelessness and inhumanity one group of people had to suffer. I think that when it was proven that the natives were not from India, then they should have recant the old name and replace it with a more politically correct name. One that wouldn't offend anyone. Also, I believe that the way the people were treated because of how they were different, was very uncivilized.
The final 'Massacre' of the Indian Wars that involved the U.S. Seventh cavalry and the Lakota Sioux at 'Wounded Knee'. The Sioux had put up a peace flag at their camp, but the army set up their guns despite it. They aimed it at the tribe which included 120 men with 230 women and children. Those numbers dropped when an accidental shot was fire when a gun was dropped. This gun shot startled the cavalry and they fired all of their guns. They ended up killing over 15o men women and children, while wounding 50.
In short, I believe that what happened at 'Wounded Knee' was an example of how people can't except something new and take their actions to the extreme. Throughout all of history people have been discriminating against people for how they look compared to the majority of the people. For instance, Africa Americans used to be enslaved because they were not white like the people who came their. Then, they revolted and one excepted as equals today. African Americans were also given names because of how they looked, and not who they really were. Thus, if we had only judged the people for who they were and not how they looked they we might not have had all of the civil wars, for everyone would have be known as equals.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Great Economy
An economy is the conservation in the expenditure or consumption of money and materials of any sort. This management of expenditures is how nations grow. Thus, without the economy, we would still be in the feudal era where everyone is owned by someone else. Without the assistance of many of the important people who allowed the world to advance through the era, we wouldn't have all of the technology that allow our economy to grow. Yet, growing is not the only advancement that would need to happen for the economy to become strong. The fundamental parts of the economy is the financial stabilization of the people.
"With usura hath no man a house of good stone each
block cut smooth and well fitting that design might cover
their face. With usura hath no man a painted paradise on his
church wall... no picture is made to endure nor to live with but it is
made to sell and sell quickly with ursura, sin against nature."
--Erza Pound, (Medici Money, Tim Parks, pg. 1)--
block cut smooth and well fitting that design might cover
their face. With usura hath no man a painted paradise on his
church wall... no picture is made to endure nor to live with but it is
made to sell and sell quickly with ursura, sin against nature."
--Erza Pound, (Medici Money, Tim Parks, pg. 1)--
Money allows people to expand their horizons and have a better way of living. Yet, during the Renaissance era the church was limiting the money for the people. Usury was a way for people to get money faster and be able make their business grow faster, yet the Church didn't like usury because it gave the Banks a source of income. To stop this "sin against nature" the Church said that who ever uses usury will be excommunicated from the church, thus they wouldn't be allowed into heaven, which slowed the process but didn't stop it. The people wanted a way to get money and borrowed the money from the bank, but the bank would not be able to ask for interest or it would be usury. Then came the "Art of Exchange," which is the way around the Church's block on the use of usury. The "Art of Exchange" is the way people would receive a loan from a bank and when it came time to pay them bank, he or she would give a gift to thank them. This would in turn be the interest on the loan that would be the sin, but because there is a different name on it makes it reasonable in the eyes of the Church.
"Every morning in Africa a gazelle wakes up.
It knows that it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows that it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter if your a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running."
--Mandarin Proverb, (The World is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman, pg. 137)--
It knows that it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows that it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn't matter if your a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running."
--Mandarin Proverb, (The World is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman, pg. 137)--
When Friedman put this proverb in his book he used it as an analogy towards big business and small business. When you take a look at how the business grew, you can see how the need for money would increase. The Scientific and Industrial Revolution caused the increase of populations, thus the increase in the need for money. The Scientific Revolution allowed the banks to use usury without the conflict between them and the Church, which started the Industrial Revolution. Now, the industry is now growing giving people more industrial jobs. These jobs were also higher paying. Consequently, banks could not keep up with the demand for the metal money. Johan Palmstruch, of the Palmstruch bank, made the first banknote which started the idealistic money and the increase in the businesses flexibility to grow larger and increase productivity.
The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx in the 1840's. It was on the bases for a course of action against the bourgeoisie or the ruling upper class. This is because Marx believes in the Locke point of view. In that, human nature is characterised by tolerance and doesn't need an governmental or ruling figure to live together in harmony. John Locke was an advocate for the checks and balances and the supply and demand, for it keeps people in one level of rule and no one is at the top of this level. Without these, the nations would not be able to have such a stable economy. Marx also stated, which was quoted on page 237 of The World is Flat, that in place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency is the universal dependency of nations. In short, we today have a solid economy and job security because of what the men and women before us accomplished. Without the perseverance of the bourgeoisie we might not have the big business, and who knows? We might not have even had the banking systems and the stock market which allows us today to fluctuate through the levels of wealth. Accordingly, we owe our entire lives to the era's that changed our economy because we depend on our credit cards and accounts that we store our "fake" money today.