If I could describe the test in one word it would be long. The multiple choice part I did not think was that hard, I've walked out of Mr. Whitten's room feeling much worse about myself than I did after taking the A.P's multiple choice section. I was surprised that the questions were more about general knowledge than specific details. I do not think I was asked one question about a specific leader or religion. As far as the open response goes, I almost laughed when I read the DBQ question. Connect cricket with politics? I honestly felt over prepared for a question like that. The next two questions were pretty random as well, but I felt confident about answering them in the format we used in class. I tried to treat it like it was just another in class essay, and I found that I finished each portion of the open response with a good pace, each response taking about 40 minutes, the DBQ slightly longer.
I feel that we reviewed for the test as best we could, but when you don't know what the College Board is going to ask it is hard to know what to study. I am just glad the stress is over, and now I can focus all my academic attention to relaxing over the summer.

Breakdown of Profile Pics of Revolutionary Heroes

The self portraits of our revolutionary heroes, although all unique, share the same characteristics of being heroic images. Washington's pose is saying "follow me" while he holds a sheathed sword. This means he is ready to fight, but only if he has to. The portrait of Marat is much more dramatic. It depicts him as being badly injured, but still holding a pen and a document in his hand, meaning he is dedicated to his revolution to the death. The portrait of Toussaint is more similar to Washington's, showing him with a sword in one hand and a document in the other. He is in the foreground of a large scale picture, meant to give him the illusion of being very large and powerful. Bolivar's portrait, although more snobby looking, is very similar to Washington and Toussaint's portraits. It shows him holding a sword and dressed royally with a document by his side.
Although these portraits are about as conceited as it gets, (imagine if Obama had a portrait like these) they are necessary. Revolutions need heroic figures to look up to. After all, a revolution is happening because the people are upset with the leaders they have now. If the new leaders are no better, then there is no point for a revolution. This is why the revolutionary leaders have to appear to be strong and intelligent and dedicated. Revolutions are also very risky things. If the revolting party fails, they will most likely be worse off than they were before. To be fully inspired to take part in the risk of a revolution, the common people need to be able to look up to a leader such as George Washington and say, "I know the British are better armed, far outnumber us, and the winter is cold, but with my boy Washington leading us we can't lose!"
Revolutionary leaders are rare and even more rarely are successful. To reward those who take the risk, I believe they deserve portraits like these. Future generations who see these photos will see these men as heroes, and courageous, and probably as being dressed like freaks. It would be nice today if there was more art like this that left pictures to be open to interpretation.

TED Talk...

As a whole, I agree with what Ferguson had to say. He asked many of the same questions that Jared Diamond attempted to tackle and did a good job explaining with examples why he thought the west is more wealthy. I completely agree with what he says in regards to competition and a legal structure contributing to the west's success. I also agree with what he said about the west being caught up to by the rest of the world. Americans are getting lazier while the competition and work ethic is growing stronger in every other country. When we watched the video of what school was like in India and China, everyone in our class realized how good we have it. We are almost forced into education and honestly, not every kid wants to be in school. That genuine desire to learn is what is leading the other countries to catch up with us.
I slightly sidetracked on the work ethic app, but I agree with most of his other apps anyway. The consumerism app I completely agree with. We buy crap we don't need but that is what helps circulate money through the economy. Ferguson gave some good examples of modern day "experiments" dividing countries, but I still believe geographic location has at least some impact on who gets wealthy. Simple things like cash crops, access to trade routes, and natural resources are things that just not every country is blessed with. Modern medicine and the scientific revolution I also agree with, but there were reasons these advances arose in the locations they did and Ferguson did not particularly elaborate on that. For such a long talk this guy did make a few jokes and overall keep it interesting. It is always good to hear some new theories on issues as complex as these, so I enjoyed this presentation. However, I am almost positive this Scottish dude will not re-tweet me if I try to contact him.

The authors put the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals together in the book and I can see their reasoning for it. All three are geographically close, and existed during the same period. Although it made it easy to group these empires together, it also made it easy to mix them up. Overall I think it would have been better to split these three empires up more to focus on each one individually, instead of almost blending them all as one unit. All the names began to sound very similar, and it was hard to distinguish what was happening during respective time periods.
Overall, I think this period of global interactions was a good thing. The exchange of information is what lead to the cultural and economic revolutions which have shaped our society today. Although there are some obvious negatives, such as the mass enslavement of Africans and the essential extermination of many native peoples, I believe the good outweighs the bad. Before this time period, transportation was not advanced enough to really exoplore the entire world. People were largely restricted to their geographical region and what was available there. This is the first time period in which people began exploring an entire new continent, and in just a few hundred years the Americas became some of the most powerful nations in the world. Technology and transportation are what leads to innovation in my opinion. What makes advances happen so quickly today is the ability to transport ideas and supplies. If this revolutionary time period never happened, there might be no U.S.A. or even it could be argued there wouldn't be computers.

Christianity and Capitalism

Christianity keeps splitting up for a number of reasons. In my opinion, it is for power. People interpret what they read in the bible differently, and that leads to people disagreeing. If some new leader comes along with a new form of religion that makes those people happy, they will follow him, thus gaining him more power. Also, part of it is just personal preference. Christianity is so widely followed that there is no way it could be suitable for everyone, yet if people still want to be considered Christian, they just follow a different branch.
As far as capitalism goes, I believe it is the free market economy that allows for open trading and employment. I do not know the dictionary definition, but the United States follows capitalism,mso it obviously has its flaws with its positives. Despite its flaws, I believe in this system and am glad to be a part of it and not communism or some other form of economy.

Which road would i take?

I dont believe one road system is particularly better than another, because both were built based on different purposes which each met. I suppose the romans roads were more advanced being that they were paved and served a much larger scale of people.

Wish i had a twitter...

The incan roads were built to accomodate for verticle travel and rainfall runoff. The roman roads were paved to allow for improved horse and caravan movement whereas this was not a factor in the incan civilization.

Griots vs. textbooks

Personally, I would prefer learning from textbooks rather than relying on storytelling when learning about history. Everyone knows stories told verbally always change. Even within an hour and a few high school kids one simple story can be dramatically altered from what it originally was. Now imagine if it were told thousands of times over hundreds of years. Certain aspects would obviously change. Also, stories told from a griot of a certain society could easily be slanted. Their kings may be told about as fair, powerful rulers but other societies may see them as ruthless tyrants. There are some benefits from storytelling and music based history. For one, it does make learning about it easier and more interesting. Also, it could be argued that the societies culture is more preserved through the art of music and dance. For me, I would like to stick to my boring textbooks and know the information I am getting is correct (hopefully). However, I respect the griots talent and dedication to their practice, so I do respect them and anyone who chooses to learn about history that way.

Mongol trial

I enjoyed the Mongol trial very much, and I would consider it the most fun and involving activity we have done this year. It was not very difficult in terms of research, we knew most of the information we needed already just from reading the chapter. In terms of the role I played, I think I did my job to the best of my ability and put up a strong argument against Futaba's ruthless cross examination.
After this trial, I actually view the Mongols less as ruthless barbarians and more as skilled empire builders. Although I would hate them if I was the one being conquered, if I were part of them I would see it as survival of the fittest, and that is why I respect them so much. As far as the charges against them go, I would definitely find them guilty of kidnapping and terrorism. They frequently forced people form their lands against their will and used complete destruction as intimidation for future opponents, which I can not really fault them for. If you think about it, if they have a reputation for being unstoppable and ruthless, then it is more likely their next opponents would just surrender. This saves lives and resources for the Mongols while simultaneously allowing them to expand at a faster rate.
The genocide charges I believe are completely false however. They did not systematically single out a religion or culture and look to destroy it. They simply aimed their sights on a territory and took it, whoever was occupying it really made no difference to them. In the future I would like to do more activities like this. It forces everyone in the class to participate while at the same time gaining new perspectives on the people we are learning about. In terms of today's standards the Mongols were savages, they ruthlessly killed for selfish reasons. The best comparison I could give would be the nazis trying to expand (minus the genocide part) and it is obvious how we view them. However, during their time things were radically different. Large scale warfare and empire building was common, and the Mongols should not be looked down upon for being extremely skilled at it.

Genghis Khan: ruthless killer or great military leader?

Genghis khan was a ruthless killer, despite his few examples of mercy. He built an empire based on violence, and the principle was surrender or die. He never made any attempt to negotiate for lands, he simply took what he wanted. Genghis committed his first murder at age 10, showing that from an early age concern for other human life was not one of his. While in command he would often order the barbaric taking of ears or other parts off of the conquered corpses. Although I respect him for creating the largest land empire ever created, I still consider him a barbarian because of the way he acquired these lands. If a ruler today were to conquer large amounts of land through military power we would call them a ruthless tyrant, so why should Genghis khan be treated differently?

Bibliography

Rees, Tom. "The Story of the First Crusade." (1999): n.pag. Web. 12 Jan 2012.

<http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/firstcrusade/Overview/Overview.htm>.

"First Crusade." . Wikipedia, 2012. Web. 10 Jan 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade>.

Davies, Denys. "The Crusades Through Muslim Eyes." Al-Ahram Weekly Online. 472 (1999): n. page. Web. 13 Jan. 2012. <http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/472/bk2_472.htm>.

Sivan, Emmanuel. "Muslim Representations of the Crusades." enec.it. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Jan 2012. <http://www.enec.it/VersoGerusalemme/11EMMANUELSIVAN.pdf>.

Knox, Ellis. "The Fifth Crusade." The Orb:. N.p., 1999. Web. 8 Jan 2012. <http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/crusade/fifthcru.html>.

Knox, Ellis. "The Seventh Crusade." The Orb:. N.p., 1999. Web. 8 Jan 2012. <http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/crusade/seventhcru.html>.

"Crusades." Exequ'ys Blog. WordPress.com, n.d. Web. 11 Jan 2012. <http://exequy.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/crusades/>.

Final Product...The Crusades Project

To display my understanding of Muslim perspectives towards the crusades, I decided to use xtranormal.com. I had never used this site before, but the idea of an animated conversation seemed funny and captivating to me. I initially tried to use Glogster, but it was too much of a hassle to edit text boxes and format things. Judging from other peoples' blogs I was not the only one who encountered this problem. Xtranormal worked very well and came out exactly as I envisioned it. The only negative about it was the voices, which are very robot sounding. The other accents offered were impossible to understand so I had to settle for what was comprehensive to a human not a computer. If I had to do this again, I might purchase a microphone to speak through my characters. This would add another interesting element to my presentation and I am good with accents. Overall this project went extremely well and was not nearly as stressful as it looked on paper. I could have collaborated in a group, but I decided I wanted to do this one my way and I am glad I did.
 >FINISHED PRODUCT

Researching the Crusades:

To try to expand my horizons (and because Mr. Whitten is making us) I have not been using Google for this assignment. I have found Yahoo and Bing are basically the same thing, but for educational purposes sweetsearch has by far been the most useful. The documents it brings up are always trustworthy unlike the things you may sometimes end up with on Wikipedia. I have been having trouble finding Muslim perspectives on the crusades. It seems like much of the work online is either general summaries of the battles or told from a Christian perspective. There is also a lot of modern day search results which is not useful to me right now, but I found it interesting that conflicts 800 years old could evolve and still exist today. A final problem I am having is conflicting information. When I read two different facts, I try to look back to my notes from our class discussions but this only solved one discrepancy. By double checking sources and comparing sites I believe I found the proper information, but I wish it would just be right the first time.

The 3 Crusades of Choice:

The three crusades I will be focusing on are the 1st, 5th, and 7th crusades. I chose these for a number of reasons. The 1st crusade is the one that started it all, and the one the Muslims probably least expected, so I figure their feelings towards the Christians may be slightly different than in the others. The fifth was the attack in Egypt, which I enjoyed learning about in class and wanted to know how it was from the Muslim perspective. The 7th crusade was the most brutal slaughter, so I know the Muslims must have had some very strong feelings regarding this one or else they would have showed more mercy.