Wait, other people are different than me? Blasphemy!

1) The Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals were all mushed into one chapter, unfortunately. The idea makes sense, because they were intertwined with each other, and each had similarities. They affected one another. So it would be reasonable to put them into one chapter, for an easy side-by-side comparison of how they're related to one another. The downside of this being that they might be squished a bit too close. It's hard to separate them, and keep track of what things came from which place. I'm constantly having to remind myself of which one it is I'm reading about. Textbooks are set up be to factual, organized, and clear. This makes them pretty boring for the most part, so I think they least they could do is be clear.

2) I definitely think this global interaction was a good thing. People tend to get so sucked into their own lives and cultures that they forget that - gasp - not everybody is exactly like them. People are still like this today, but that's a whole different story. I think this was a good opportunity for people to experience what life is like in other parts of the world. Trade allowed them to discover new goods and expand what goods they produce. Religion and culture were spreading and mingling, evolving and changing. I think it's much more beneficial to be aware of the world around you, as opposed to being isolated or ignorant. It was a time when people were beginning to learn about other cultures. Sometimes people need a little push, so they can realize that just because it's how you've been doing it since forever, doesn't mean it's the best way.

I sound weird in ShowMe

Heena's (696-700): http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=jlGPHfs
Shannon's (701-705):  http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=iwh3SQi
Melissa's (705-710): http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=k4a0MLI
Mine (711-715):  http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=JFOqKUi
Nrupa's (715-718): http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=EfIKRiC

Christianity and Capitalism

I think Christianity is constantly changing because the world is constantly changing. When people dislike something that is commonly accepted, they try to change it. Everything from what the church supports to the technicalities of a Christian mass has changed at some point. Prayer, masses, and preaching have evolved because there are more convenient and relateable ways to do those things now. Christianity will probably be different in the future than it is today, no different than laws or politics. If the people involved are changing, the religion is bound to change too.

Capitalism. I honestly don't know what it is, really. I'm fairly certain it has something to do with the economy. So...a type of economy. Maybe.

Griots

I personally would be much more interested if we learned history through storytelling, singing, and dancing. It would hold my attention much more than textbooks, and I'd probably remember the facts more easily. A downside being that if the lessons are only passed down orally, and not recorded, they're bound to lose and change information along the way. What we would be taught might not be accurate, or it might be exaggerated for the sake of keeping the stories captivating. Textbooks are definitely more accurate, with primary sources and such. While learning history through this kind of art would be awesome, it wouldn't be very accurate. Then again, I don't know how awesome singing about history would be first thing in the morning.

Mongols on Trial

I personally enjoyed the trial. It was fun seeing everyone put on the roles they picked. If we did another one I think I'd pick to be a direct examiner though, because being cross-examined was terrifying. The prep was pretty easy, especially because of the variety of sources we could use. But when it came to the actual trial, I found that a lot harder. You had to think quickly and remind yourself that no matter what you personally felt, you had to make the Mongols sound a certain way. That was tough for me, because I would have easily voted them guilty, but I was a part of the defense. I think I did better with my questioning with Melissa than the cross examination. I wish I hadn't faltered under Futaba so much, but can you blame me? I knew my information but being put on the spot is not my strong suit.

I think that a person can be ambitious, successful, and prosperous while also being a terrible person. That's kind of what I think of the Mongols. They had incredible achievements and expansion, but I don't like the way they went about gaining that. I personally don't like humanity's need to conquer conquer conquer. It's nice to expand and rule, but it's impossible to do without tons of bloodshed. And I think people have always been, and always will be, too greedy and violent to break these habits. It's depressing, but I don't see many other options when I look at how we act today. But back to the Mongols, I think we can admire them for their accomplishments and military strength while also acknowledging that they were ruthless killers. As were most people we learn about in history. Humans are just violent, unfortunately. We're selfish and greedy and ignorant. But that's besides the point.

I would have definitely found them guilty of terrorism and kidnapping. It's pretty clearly written in history that they stole people from opponents all the time, and they instilled fear through this and by demolishing cities. There's no way they didn't know the effect they would have on other societies by destroying everything in their path. They were far too clever for that. As for genocide, I'm not sure. I'd probably not charge them with that, only because I don't think they killed anyone because of their race, religion, etc. They just wanted to rule everybody, I don't think they cared which specific groups they were ruling. Equal opportunities for all the conquered, wooo!

Genghis Khan - insane or genius?

Genghis Khan was known for being one of the most ruthless leaders the world has ever seen. But was he crazy? I think that depends on your definition. I think he was extremely power hungry and driven - all of his attacks were thoughtfully planned out ahead of time. There was always a reason, a purpose, a strategy. He wasn't just randomly killing of people - you know, except for his half brother that took his fish. He carefully planned out all of his attacks so that they would benefit him - often scaring other potential targets into surrendering. He could just as easily have slaughtered them, but it was more logical to let them give up peacefully. He was also said to save women and children from the attacks. I know, "but killing men is just as bad!" The world he was brought up in was brutal, though. Survival was vital and could only be achieved through personal strength and determination. Genghis Khan was raised and taught that in order to survive and thrive, seizing power was necessary. And killing was necessary to seize power. Do I think killing a family member over a fish is normal? No. In fact, I personally believe that there's something abnormal going on in a person's brain who can willingly and relentlessly murder people. But that's just my opinion - Genghis Khan could have very well been completely healthy. He certainly was intellectually.

Links

Hashtag: https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23APworldSillyCrusades
My profile: https://twitter.com/#!/Quran_4evah
Heena's profile: https://twitter.com/#!/Allah_luvs_me