Benedict's Rule Questions

4. Monasteries that kept to Benedict's Rule could be considered very useful institutions because they promoted peace and good will towards men. In the section "Of the Reception of Guests", Benedict says "Let all guests that come be received like Christ Himself", demonstrating an emphasis on charity, thereby bettering society.
5. In the section "On The Daily Manual Labor", Benedict states "If, however, the needs of the place or poverty require them to labour themselves in gathering in the harvest, let them not grieve at that". This demonstrates a sense of responsibility to labor, showing that the economy was relatively stable, but was sometimes in desperate need of the help of monks.

"I do not enjoy Bahkti poetry, Sam-I-Am. I do not like green eggs and ham."

The poems were all love poems. If anything they were a devotion to the Kama Sutra. There was only one poem I felt that really reflected the Bahkti movement and Hinduism, and the rest were about love, or food (Don't get me wrong, I love both love and food, but it just doesn't reflect Hinduism)

Would you like me to sing you a Song?... Poem?

First off, one thing to get straight, all poetry confuses me. I'm just one of those people who can't see the deeper meaning in literature unless I read it over a couple times and even then, only a so-so chance I'll actually understand it.
That being said, I do seem to notice a difference between Tang and Song poetry. Tang poetry seems to be more light hearted than Song does, not saying that the Song stuff is depressing, just saying that the subjects seem to get deeper. And this would make sense, because the Tang dynasty was more of a peaceful era than the Song dynasty which faced multiple financial and military problems.
I think that poems can be used to understand daily life well, but not a broad outlook of the dynasties like the chapters can give, because the poems are written from individuals at different places, so connected they might be able to give us a good view, but individually no.

Constantine and Vladmir: Christian Bros

The conversions of Constantine and Vladmir to Christianity had their similarities and differences.

Constantine had two main reasons behind his conversion:
1) At the battle of Milvian Bridge, when Constantine was about to fight against the Emperor Maxentius, he looked up into the sky, and saw a burning cross with the words "Through this sign conquer" emblazoned on it. After that he won the battle, and believed more in the Monotheistic Christian God than the Polytheistic Roman Gods.
2) His Wife. Although he did gain faith in the Christian religion due to the Cross in the sky, Constantine's wife, who was an ordained Christian, was the one who finally convinced him to convert (to shut her up really).

Now Vladmir also did convert for his wife, but in the sense that he actually converted to win his wife. Anna of the royal family of the Byzantine empire, had rejected marriage proposal after marriage proposal from the rulers of France and Germany, and when the barbarian king of the Russians proposed, it seemed obvious that she would turn him down in the blink of an eye. But Vladimir persisted and converted to Christianity, and Anna immediately agreed to marriage.

So, not saying their faith had nothing to do with the two emperors converting, but their wives/ future wives were probably the biggest deal makers for both of them.

Domes, Mosaics and Pre New Yowk: a look at ancient Constantinople

The first trend I noticed about Constantinople: Domes. Lots and lots of domes. Everywhere there was a church, there was a dome. This probably had to do with Constantine's new form of architecture, that was carried down through the centuries, copied and improved. Going along with the theme of the church, mosaics seemed to be a big piece of artwork used.
The Byzantines were obviously very Christian. The pictures of Jesus, Mary and their emperor's with halos around their head represents this. Most all of these pieces of art are done in the mosaic form. And finally, looking at the maps of Constantinople, I notice the streets for the most part are layed out like a grid, like Modern Day New York, this shows, along with the domes on our government buildings, the affect that ancient Constantinople has on us today.

Constantinople: If you could make it there, you could make it anywhere... but not really

1) Jewish Rabbi (Benjamin of Tudela), writing to the Jews, admires Constantinople, admires the trade center, beautiful buildings, etc. But Jews were treated crappily, yet he still admires it all. Goes into detail about different parts of the city
2) Robert of Clary, writing about Greeks and why Constantinople was captured, and how they were amazed at the riches of the city, written to the general people
3) Nicetas Choniates, How the Latins destroyed Constantinople because they didn't care how impressive it was. Not very good to use because it makes everything too exaggerated
4) Illustrated map of Constantinople, not very credible, very few buildings in avery tiny area, not necessarily to scale, shows religion, shows how protected the city is
5) Photo taken by Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, Saint Sophia built by Constantine, shows new form of architecture started by Constantine
6) Written by George Acropolites, about the emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus, written to emphasize the christian aspect of the Byzantine empire, talks about all the cathedrals, handing down of the throne, the palace, etc.
7) Possible written by Chrysobull detailing privileges of Venetians, talks about the battles that they won, doesn't really describe Constantinople, only mentions it for it's trading port.

In my opinion Document 1 best describes Constantinople. It illustrates all parts of Constantinople, including religious aspects, the beauty of the city and it's trade. And the fact that Benjamin of Tudela also described the Jewish oppression in the city helps to emphasize that he is not being completely bais, showing the real beauty of the city.

The Silk Road: Has it's ups and downs

Three things that I thought went well with this project were:

1. Me and Nicole worked really well together, and it was the first time this year we were able to. It was nice to switch up partners and work with other members of the class.
2. It helped me to understand chapter 12 more. When I read, sometimes the words just go in one ear and out the other. These projects help to reinforce information that I don't get, and I wouldn't realize until the day of the test otherwise.
3. Honestly, any experience I can get on google docs is great. I've never used it before this year, and so when I can collaboratively write and essay with a partner, and have each other go back and forth editing, it makes my life easier and my grade better.

Three things I did not think went well with this project were:

1. Welp, there was a storm, and the power went out, and so did the wifi, and mine just came back 3 hours ago... I think that's all that needs to be said about the reliability of a project done on the internet.
2. I don't think I took this project as seriously as I should have, and that the work I put in wasn't enough. Obviously there were some circumstances that couldn't be avoided, but me and Nicole could have made the map better and the google doc is not my favorite that I've ever written.
3. I wish that I had thought to take the map home. Both me and Nicole conversed on Friday and realized we both had insanely busy weekends, and so we thought "Ok, we'll just finish it on class on Monday." But of course, we overestimated the amount of time we had to do it, and so that was our fault. Although I can hope and pray for a good grade, I know we'll get the one we deserve.

The worst part of the map was the scaling. Nicole and I spent a good two days just trying to come up with a basic outline of the map.

Whatever grade we get on this, Nicole and I did work really well together through our busy schedules, and I would love to work with her again under different conditions and when we both have a bit more time.

If we had a chance to do this again, I would bring our map home to work on it, and I would better plan our schedules so that we could get everything done with a time frame that works best for us.

Why can't everybody just get along?: A comparison of Jesus's teachings with those of other philosphers.

Jesus's moral teachings v.:

	Zoroastrianism	Confucianism	Daoism	Buddhism	Hinduism	Socrates
Similarities	Principles of good and evil End of the world Heaven	Be kind to other humans	One world	Dismissal of suffering  No need for luxury Worldly attraction not important	Promise of salvation	Behave honorably to other humans One society
Differences	Evil should be forgiven in Jesus's eyes	Confucius has no god and no heaven. Not a religion.	Jesus believes in god... and heaven... and clothes	Belief in god	Belief in god	Belief in god and heaven Forgiveness of enemies

Let's Build an Empire!... No, it's not an iPhone app...

There seem to be a few common themes between the arise of major empires during the classical era, which include the Persian, Chinese, Mauryan, and Roman Empires.

The first is that they all follow a period of complete and utter chaos. Cyrus the Great conquered the Persian Empire after the fall of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. China was united when the first emperor Qin ended the Period of Warring States in 221 BCE. The Mauryan Empire formed after periods of war where Darius and Alexander the Great conquered and were forced to leave India. The Roman Empire was formed after the assassination of Julius Caeser, where civil war broke out, leading to a period of chaos that was ultimately ended when Octavian, Caeser's nephew, took power and declared himself emperor. Every single empire formed after a period of war or of chaos.

The second trend seen in the formation of empires is the standardization of different systems (roads, currency, weights and measures, etc.). Ancient Persia set up the "Royal Road", which allowed them to trade with as far away as India and China, as well as the standardization of Persian coins throughout the empire. China standardized writing, weights and measures, currency, language and set up one of the biggest trading routes of the time, the silk road. The Mauryans had set up both land and sea trade routes extending from the Mediterranean to the East China Sea. The Romans set up roads and outposts all over their empire, which led to the saying "All roads lead to Rome", as well as spreading Roman culture to many parts of the empire.

These two along with many more factors led to the formation of empires during the classical era.

The Internet Never Lies: A Comparison of the AP World History Textbook and Wikipidia

On Friday in class, I worked with Futaba to find out more about Jainism. For help we used both Wikipedia and the textbook. Between the two I honestly found Wikipedia to be more helpful, and here's why: The textbook has to deal with all human history ever and as a result and get into really specific specifics. It does an incredibly good job of giving us all the overview that we'll need for the AP exam. But when we want to get into specifics, it doesn't really help much because it might give only 1-2 paragraphs of the subject you need to study specifically. When it comes to in class assignments like these, Wikipidia trumps the textbook any day of the week. The good thing about Wikipedia, which many teachers see as a bad thing, is that anybody can edit it. The only time I've ever heard of that power going ary is when Sarah Palin's followers changed the Paul Revere page to match what she said had happened when he warned American's the British were coming. Besides that, there might not be experts editing the pages, but there won't be devout Catholics editing the Jainism page. It would be edited by Jainists or other people who study Jainism, making it nearly as reliable as it could get. I wouldn't want to use Wikipedia for everything school related, but I do think teachers sometimes misinterpret how good of a teaching tool it really is, and it could definitely be used for more school-related projects and activities.

Ha! He said duties!: A comparison of the Caste System, Zoroastrianism and Confucianism

Bhagavad Gita stresses a few points when talking about the Caste System.

The first is not to fear death, but to welcome it. He said that all things die and are reborn many times over (reincarnation). You do reach heaven if you die a righteous death in battle. In this aspect, there are some similarities to Zoroastrianism and no Confucianism. Zoroastrianism talks about a final judgement determining weather you go to paradise or hell, and Confucianism doesn't have any after life or reincarnation, and can barely be counted as a religion in that way (more of an idealism I'd say.)

Going along with point one of not to fear death, point two suggests that when charging into battle there should be no fear, because if you live you get to enjoy earth longer, and if you die you get to go to heaven. Like the heaven of the Caste System, there is a heaven in Zoroastrianism, but it is only reached on the final day of judgement, not from succeeding in battle. There is a similarity to Confucianism in that fulfilling your duty is important.

The final point made is that people should do stuff, not for the reward of doing stuff, but because it's the right stuff do. This goes hand in hand with Confucianism, because the big picture behind Confucius's teachings was to be a good person for the sake of making the world a better place, not just for your own personal benefit. The comparison to Zoroastrianism is being good people. However, Zoroastrians have a final goal they're trying to accomplish, whereas the Caste System just says to be good for the sake of being good.

How shall the blogs be graded?

After thoroughly looking over a few of the AP World blogs, there are a few different ways I think the blog should be graded. First off, I believe it's everybody's own personal blog, so the posts should be casual, and not like a person is writing their college essay for each one. That being said, I also don't think that the blogs should be written in text talk, or like it only took a person 20 seconds to write down all their thoughts. So although I don't believe that grammar should be a huge judgement of the blogs, I believe if necessary bad grammar should be penalized.

Second, I never believe length should be the judgement of anything. For instance, in english class, asking a kid to write a five paragraph essay with at least 10 sentences to each paragraph is pointless. Much of that essay will be filled with gratuitous information or sentences, and it's just harder to write and grade. I believe that whatever assignment it is, the person should only write the information that will help them answer the question they are being asked, regardless of length.


When it comes to the grading system, I believe that a 3 is a well-written blog that is "comfortable" to read and answers all parts of the question or assignment being asked, with clean examples or proofs added into the blog; a two is a well constructed post that answers only a few parts of the question being asked in detail and does not do a very good job using examples or proofs; a 1 is for people who half-a** every part of their blog, barely answering the question and not using anything to help prove themselves; and finally zero's go to those individuals who don't post, or when they do post, they don't answer the question in any way whatsoever.

I personally think that assessing each other, though it may have benefits, is a bad idea. I would hate it if people read my history blog every day and then judged it heavily, and I believe that others find that to be a painful experience as well. If people just check in to see what others think about the question being asked, that would be ok, but if they're going to comment on every post, that can get intimidating. It's one thing when you're teacher checks in, because you're doing an assignment specifically for them, but peer judgement is inexplicably scary to confront.

The Analects blog post

Tzu-kung asked about government.  The Master said, “Give them enough food, give them enough arms, and the common people will trust in you.
           Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of these three, which should one give up first?”
           “Give up arms.”
           Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of the remaining two, which should one give up first?”
           “Give up food.  Death has always been with us since the beginning of time, but when there is no trust, the common people will have nothing to stand on.”

Of all the selections from The Analects, I found this one to be most relatable to modern American politics, especially after the debt crisis over the summer. Relating back to the dept crisis, I think it's fair to say that not only American citizens, but much of the world, has lost faith in congress. It proved to everybody that at this point in the game, America is having a really difficult time running itself, thereby losing the faith and trust of the average American citizen. According to Confucius, that's the absolute last thing that a government should want to lose. The first thing we should give up is our guns (and, being incredible liberal, I think that the right to bear arms by the average citizen should be taken away during times of peace. But that's a conversation for another day.) yet guns are still allowed throughout America. And after arms are taken away, the next thing to go should be food, but America has a surplus of food. So why oh why then, if we still have arms and food, did our leaders let the trust of the American people slip through their fingers. In order to get us out of this huge cluster that the government has gotten us into, they need to restore the faith of America by cooperating with one another and moving forward, instead of combating with one another over differing view points and getting us nowhere. Quoting another wise man, not Confucius: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" -Abraham Lincoln 

Should Alexander be referred to as "The Great"

In my humble opinion, I believe that Alexander of Macedon truly deserves the title of "the Great". He grew up in a small kingdom, one that you wouldn't think could spawn the person who would conquer much of the known world. Between 336 and 331 BCE he had conquered Ionia, Antolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and was preparing to do battle with the biggest empire of the world at that time, Persia. By 330 BCE, Darius III, the ruler of Persia, was dead, and Alexander was free to conquer all of southwest Asia and into India, creating one of the largest land empires of the ancient world, second only to that of the Mongols.

Ok, first off, the guy was ballsy. At the start of his campaign, he only had 37,000 troops, compared to the numbers in the hundreds of thousands he'd have to face against Persia. Secondly, he was an insane strategist. He found his army in what seemed to be unwinnable scenarios a lot, sometimes where they were entirely surrounded, and yet he found the opposing army's one week point, broke through, and destroyed army #2. Third, he marched his army all the way across the most barren, desert terrain on the earth, kept their spirits high and mighty, and encouraged them to conquer one society after another after another. The guy was a natural born leader. Not to mention he did this all before he turned 30. NBD. So ya, if you come to me and say "Should Alexander be referred to as 'the great'?", I'll probably give you a sarcastic look, and then reply "No. He should be referred to as 'the Greatest'."