Those poor Europeans just wanna have fun

Benedict's Rule was extremely strict, so you could be sure that these monasteries would have no funny business. Or fun. There are the basic rules of respect and patience, but laughing was practically forbidden.  Followers were instructed not to speak often, and to not have "excessive laughter". But the rules also clearly state that seniors must be respected, believe in God, and show benevolence towards everyone. So the people making up the monasteries would be rigidly faithful people who keep to themselves and are kind to everyone around them. There would be no distractions, corruption, or issues (or, once again, fun). They would literally do nothing besides worship God.

The Rule tells us that religion was still an important aspect of social life. People were in constant fear of going to hell. In fact, one of the rules clearly states "To be in dread of hell". People yearned for a structured religion to keep them on track, to ensure that they had a pleasant afterlife. Most people probably felt guilt deep down about their past sins or mistakes, so they wanted to repent. To do this, they put all of their focus in God and didn't waste their time with impious things, like being tired, and talking...such horrible sins would surely destroy their souls! Economically, there must have been people who were still struggling from poverty, since The Rule mentions helping the needy in more than one way. People were instructed to feed, clothe, console, and relieve the poor.

Tang vs Song poetry

Poems from both of these dynasties used nature and love as  main themes. They were pretty straightforward to understand. One of the main goals of poetry is to relate to the reader, whether or not the reader has experienced exactly what the poet is talking about. These universal themes help this goal a lot. I did like the poems from both societies. I think poetry can reflect a society very well, because points of view vary between societies, and people within them can be exposed to different things on a daily basis. Even if two poets were talking about the same thing, if they were from different societies, they might have a very different perspective from each other. I think that because these aren't extremely specific, they represent the societies well. The Song poetry did seem a little more serious than the Tang.

Vladamir vs. Constantine

The conversions to Christianity that Vladamir and Constantine both went through are really only the same on one level: they did both convert to Christianity. Besides that, these two moments in history were very different. Constantine saw God while in battle, and His message powered Constantine and his troops to victory. This was eye-opening for Constantine, and he fully embraced the religion. He established the Edict of Milan, and Christians were free to practice their religion. The entire conversion was very positive and smooth. When Vladamir converted, on the other hand, he was not as good a role model as Constantine. Constantine embodied the Christian beliefs of freedom and kindness, while Vladamir was quite the opposite. He ordered his people to convert as well, and his public image did not match up with his beliefs. He was a promiscuous drunk. He forced Christianity upon his people, taking away any choice or freedom they had. Not as impressive as God coming to you during battle to tell you how to win.

Byzantine Architecture

The Byzantine buildings do mostly have a modern feel to them. Many are tall with lots of windows, which reminds me of  American office buildings or apartments. These were probably used more functionally, because of all the space inside. The monasteries, on the other hand, are big and curved looking, with domes. These were generally more grand and eye-catching, so they seemed more decorative than the other buildings. Many of these buildings were painted in various shades of brown and red.

Been a Long Time Gone, Constantinople

Document 1, written by Benjamin of Tudela, talks about the overview of Constantinople, describing it's wealth and beauty. This is a somewhat reliable source, but Benjamin was a Rabbi, so the religious aspects might have been off. It is pretty general though, so it was probably directed towards travelers or outsiders. Document 2 was written by Robert of Clari, and it discusses the immense wealth of Constantinople. The extent of said wealth might be exaggerated. It was directed towards the general public. Document 3 was about attacks on the city and were probably directed towards other citizens of Constantinople. Document 4 was a drawing of a map, which is only credible to a point. Considering the time period when it was drawn, it might not be accurate. Document 5 seemed the most credible to me, because it was an actual photograph. There isn't much room for bias in there. Document 6 once again discusses Constantinople's wealth, written by George Acropolites. It sounds credible enough, because he describes Constantinople realistically and it seems more factual. The last document was, again, about wealth and power. It's written by a historian, and it's directed towards the general public.

Silk Road Project Review

1. One thing that I definitely think went well was working in partners. It was easier to divide the work up and pool our ideas together. Also, for the most part, the paper seems to be going well (we haven't finished it yet, but it seems to be ok). And finally, giving us class time really helped. It was a good opportunity to ask questions and get a good amount done.

2. One thing that was a little tough was the research. There wasn't a lot of thorough information on each item, and I personally don't like doing a lot of guesswork. Getting our map to be proportional to the original probably took us the longest amount of time, due to our lack of math and line-drawing skills, I think. Also, it was a little tough to track the Bubonic plague, since most of the information was regarding the outbreak in Europe.

3. Drawing was hard for me, but I'm sure most of the groups didn't have an issue with that. The actual work itself wasn't too bad, but trying to finish it in a timely manner could be challenging. Also, some of the research was hard to do, because it was what I could find vs. what was most likely accurate.

4. I liked working with a partner. It's hard in a group sometimes to split up the work, and then sometimes people don't agree on things, and working on the project at the same time is nearly impossible. But with a partner we can compare ideas, switch off based on whose handwriting is better and who can draw a straight line, and split the work pretty evenly. Also, it's always better to be working with a friend than locked in your room by yourself. Always.

5. If we did it again, I'd probably suggest we redo how the maps would be proportional. I also might spend more hardcore researching time for the products we picked. Though this is beyond my control, it would be great if we avoided power outages and blizzards while working on something like this.

Jesus' Teachings

Like most of the teachings from other religions in the past, Jesus gives his followers a certain code to follow. However, unlike the others, it is less specific. There are some basic requirements - don't steal, lie, kill, etc - but beyond that a follower is simply to live a good life. The kingdom of heaven is open to any type of person who is good. Jesus is also one of the first religious leaders to directly encourage the poor. He acknowledges that they are people too, and let's them know that they are worthy of getting into heaven along with the wealthy. Another new aspect he brings up is that revenge is not good, and evil should be repaid with kindness. "...love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you..." He very directly said that you will be rewarded by living a good life on earth. Other religions suggested that it was right to take revenge, and that the poor were inferior. Jesus taught his followers to treat every person equally and with respect. Don't treat others the way they treat you; treat them as if they're your best friend.

Why Do Empires Form?

Empires form when civilizations want to expand, when powerful leaders gain power, and when culture and ideas spread. In Rome, there were many people fighting for power, so when Caesar gained power, his urge for control grew and his empire expanded.The wealthy had a lot of power, which led to an empire being built.
In China, many wise and powerful leaders rose to power during the Period of Warring States, which unified China and made it into a large and successful empire.
In India, leaders were born after Alexander the Great had came and went. His legacy was famous, and people rose to the occasion in hopes of ruling a strong empire.

Passage 4

Caesar had a lot of accomplishments, but Brutus and all Caesar's haters ganged up and stabbed him to death.

Passage 3

In 146 BCE, the Roman Empire expanded to Iberia, modern Italy, Macedon, Ionia, and Carthage in Africa.

Passage 2

Tiberius said people to have a Limit to how much land they own. When explaining the owner could defend their land, people thought he said he wanted a crown so the Roman senators killed him.

Passage 1

If you commit a crime, you'll be punished equally. Deformed babies are killed. Basically if you get killed for a crime you deserved it.

Textbook vs. Wikipedia

I think both the textbook and Wikipedia are useful resources for what we're studying, but they both have their pros and cons. Wikipedia is much easier to navigate, I think, and is good if you have something specific to find about the topic. On the other hand, there is that never ending debate about how valid the information on there is. The textbook is a little harder to break into sections than Wikipedia, and no offense Mr. Whitten, but reading it makes my eyes glaze over. But it's good for getting a good look at the topic in general, and all the basic knowledge you need to know about it. It also has a lot more pictures, and things like charts and maps.
So as we go section to section, I would probably prefer using the textbook, to make sure I have the basis of everything down correctly. But I like using Wikipedia for looking up specific facts or a summary of something.

Bhagavad Gita Caste Duties

The Bhagavad Gita talks about the importance of knowing and fulfilling your own duty. It also stresses the importance of not become attached to material objects, and to avoid being allured by pleasure and power. Overall, fulfill your duties on earth, and you'll get the highest reward possible: a spot in heaven.
Zarathustra agrees with the Bhagavad Gita on the concept of good behavior earning you a place in heaven. But Zarathustra also focuses less on action than this, and more on a person's goodness. The Bhagavad Gita says you should act based on instinct, not of what the consequences will be. Confucianism differs here, because it's teachings say you should be the best person you can be, and therefor be prudent when acting. All three revolve around a person being "good", but differ a lot about heaven, how you get to heaven, and your behaviors on earth.

A Post about Posting

I think that blog posts should be treated similarly to if we had written a paragraph in class and handed them in. While it's important for us to use good grammar and double-check our work, points shouldn't be taken away for someone whose strengths may not lie in writing. The length, as long as it's not really long or short, shouldn't matter as long as the post includes everything that needs to be addressed. Unless someone's post has nothing to do with anything we're talking about, they shouldn't get a 0. Getting a 1 could be a brief minimum, a 2 would be good, and a 3 being detailed and accurate. Lastly, I think that the only person grading should be Mr. Whitten, but why not have others comment on our posts? There's nothing wrong with arguing someone's point, or agreeing, or bringing up something new.

Confucius Quote - Modern Government

The Confucius quote I picked was "The gentleman understands what is moral, the small man understands what is profitable." This says a lot about the difference between choosing actions that lead to profit alone, and the ones that are moral and profitable. I would direct this quote towards the members of our government, in regards to their choices regarding war. There are many was the US was involved with that people will argue was unnecessary (Iraq, Afghanistan). While it's admirable that the US feels the need to play the peacemaker, that isn't the effect of what joining a war does. The funding for a war is astronomical, and our economy had been plunging for a while now. Soldiers can be off fighting in the Middle East with high-tech weapons, but we have countless Americans who are starving, unemployed, or homeless. There's no denying that the US is a strong country, but is it a moral one? The decisions made by past presidents may go against that.

Alexander "The Great"

I think that Alexander, although he was an accomplished leader, did not deserve his title of "The Great". It's true that he conquered a lot of land and was a highly skilled military leader. He also expanded his empire and was a strong leader to his men, but his motives don't match up to his title. His whole reason for wanting to conquer Persia was for revenge on a war that happened years ago. He burned the palace in Persepolis as a form of revenge on what Xerxes did, and he killed Bessus just for taking away Alexander's opportunity of killing Darius. He had a huge ego and sense of pride that often brought him consequences; his drinking made him even more a violent, arrogant man. He took a lot of risks and acted on impulse many times. If he was more cautious, more respectable, and more sober, he would have deserved his title completely.