IT'S ALMOST APRIL VACATION! PRAISE ALL THAT IS MERRY

**Mr. Whitten, I apologize for the length of this. I found it interesting and got carried away because I had a lot to say.

Sigh. Revolutionary leaders and their selfies.

I guess everyone acts like a teenage girl at some point...
even old, most likely balding men.

But hey, who am I to judge.

And now to the actual content of this post.

PHOTO NUMERO UNO: Jorge Washington

The first thing that strikes me about this first portrait is Washington's pose. Good old Georgie is pulling off quite a majestic stance there. His standing tall with his head held high sends the message that he is strong and willing. His facial expression - set, stern, and serious - tells the viewer that he means business, and oh does he mean it. He doesn't look outwardly dangerous or intimidating, but theres something about his facial expression that says "Don't mess with me." Maybe its the knowing eyes or the locked jaw. His gesture of the extended arm leads me to believe that it is as if he is gesturing to the newly independent land of America, as if to say, "Check out this place and all its bounty. You don't have to report back to the King anymore." The sword that he carries, I believe, is a symbol of his strength, and (in the view of an optomist) a symbol of a promise to fight for his newly independent land. Overall, nothing about the picture makes him look like a bad guy, yet none of it leads me to believe that if he were alive today that I'd be interested in what he has to say. The colors used are brighter than I've seen in most paintings of political leaders. Since this was probably generated in the aftermath of the revolution, perhaps these colors were used around Washington because he was held in a high, optomistic light. 'MERICA!

PHOTO NUMERO DOS: Marat

"SWEET MARY MOTHER OF GOD" <- initial reaction
"SCARY" <- reaction after viewing for about a minute
"I CAN'T GET OVER IT AND IT WILL HAUNT MY SLEEP TONIGHT" <- final conclusion.

This picture is FREAKY. Dark colors are used everywhere, and it gives a really eerie, dismal tone to the whole thing. I don't even want to talk about the guy's physical appearance, but hey, I have to for a good grade, so here we go. First thing I notice? He's bloody. Yup. Bloody. In my opinion, maybe this is supposed to symbolize him giving himself for the people? Not too sure though. All I can take from it is that it seems as though he is some sort of sacrifice. His facial expression makes him look weary and tired...but I can't really see any pain in it. Maybe a little bit, but he clearly isn't in an overwhelming amount of pain...but he has what looks like a STAB WOUND, or a really deep scrape on his chest. Why that is there, I do not want to know. Perhaps it is supposed to be representative of pains he faced during the revolution. He is writing some sort of letter that is blood stained. I have no clue what it could be about, but I know that it says his name in the middle of it. He looks like he is popping out of a bed...or even a coffin of some sorts. Who knows. There is blood on the edges of the white canvas around him, which leads me to believe that he is sitting in a pool of blood or something...I feel as though this painting is representative of Marat on his death bed. His head is wrapped in a turban-like head covering, as well.

PHOTO NUMERO TRES: Toussaint

What a nice change after the last picture! In this portrait, Toussaint is standing very tall and upright, making him look imposing and almost intimidating. His posture makes him look very strong and majestic. The large sword that he is brandishing reminds me of the photo of George Washington, although in Washington's photo, he is holding the sword in his left hand rather than Toussaint who is holding the sword in his right. Is this significant? Probably not. He is holding a large piece of parchment, which I believe is probably the result of Haiti's revolution - a write-up of what they desire their government to be. He is very well dressed in the portrait, and his facial expression looks wise and serious. The man approaching in the background looks as if he is looking up towards Toussaint, which causes Toussaint to appear to be a role model of some sorts and definitely a leader figure towards the soldiers. The mountain and land behind Toussaint look very beautiful and welcoming, which contributes to projecting the idea that Toussaint is helping to bring peace and happiness to the land of Haiti.

PHOTO NUMERO CUATRO: Simon Bolivar

Ok, first of all, let's look at this guy's facial expression. When I look at the way his eyes are slanted toward the artist, mouth all smugly positioned, all I can hear in my head is "Mmhm. Check me out. I was a revolutionary leader. Aww yeah. Get at me." He too, in this portrait, is brandishing a sword. In the portraits of Washington and Toussaint, the sword was held in a more relaxed fashion toward the ground. However, in the portrait of Bolivar, the weapon is more extended and pointed off the ground in a  more threatening position. This is probably intended to make Bolivar look strong, tough, and imposing. He is also dressed very well - this probably was intended to make him appear as strong and a credible leader. His stance looks rather cocky and arrogant.

I noticed that (as far as similarities go), in all of these portraits, the leader is holding something in his hand - each an instrument of revolution. 3/4 of them were brandishing weapons - a symbol of war that was fought - Marat was holding a quill, most likely the symbol of writing up the ideal government. Also, in EVERY portrait, there is parchment and/or quills visible somewhere in the portrait. I believe that they had these elements in common because each element really stresses the fact that these are revolutionary leaders in the portrait, as element has something to do with fighting for the revolution or reformation. I believe that these men are portrayed in the way that they are because it projects the image that they are role models, and strong, follow-able leaders that will lead the people to success. This accomplishes, in regards to these men, that future generations would have great respect for them, and attempt to model themselves after these men in order to become adequate leaders. Revolutions NEED heroes, because it gives a face to the fighting and someone for the people to look up to and follow for guidance. It helps to add a purpose to the revolution, because people seek to please those who they respect. The artist is really only celebrating their ideals, however. Even if these men were brilliant leaders anyways, if they were not pro-revolution, they would not be loved. It is the fact that they maintained the ideals of the people that gathered respect and a cause for celebration about them.

Pandas, or race confused bears? These are the questions I ponder.

First off, might I express my views on the Mr. Ferguson in question?

Though I will lose no sleep over such a matter, I observed that this man was very...very full of himself. He seemed to believe that he was much funnier than he was in reality...he reminded me of Harry Potter's Gilderoy Lockhart, to be honest.

Anyways, the actual content of my post.

Based upon his attitude, I felt as though I was going to disagree with everything Ferg-ferg said; however I found myself agreeing with his points.

I feel that his chosen six "killer apps" were definitely on spot. Competition? Of course that is a factor. A little healthy competition goes a long way...sure, much of the globe's competition wasn't/isn't always healthy, but hey, it definitely promotes reformation and various changes to sprout up within society. We're humans...let's get real. We all just want to out-do each other. Property rights? Okay, I see where he's going. To allow property rights is to allow the individual to bulk up in their own stock and property...which obviously prompts the circulation of ca-ching, which drives the economy. A healthy economy makes for strides in progress. The scientific revolution is what I believe to be one of the top killer apps, personally. With the scientific revolution came a whole new revival of thinking and learning...humans started pulling their heads out of their behinds and hatching a thought about the world around them. These thoughts led to innovation and various improvements to life in general - obviously putting the West ahead of the game, as other societies were actually rejecting such innovation for religious purposes, as Fergie Ferg said. Modern medicine? Dear lord, do not get me started. I gotta agree with Niall on this one, medicine is HUGE. Of course this put the West ahead! People were sticking around longer! Spending money for a longer period of time, thinking and contributing to societal improvements for a longer period of time, reproducing and adding to the population for a longer period of time. Obviously this would put the West ahead. The consumer society and work ethic, ok. Consumer society? Definitely makes sense. The West was making more goods, selling more goods, generating more revenue. Let's face it - money makes the world go around. Sure, a lot of tree huggers would like to reject that idea and say "No! It's love and happiness and butterflies that make the world go round!". Sorry guys, time to face it. You need money. Clearly the West had more. And work ethic? Alright, I guess so. But I tend to think that that translates more to the individual, rather than the society on the whole. But hey, that's just me.

I found the idea of the "great reconvergence" quite fabulous actually. What I don't find fabulous, however, is the fact that I just used "fabulous" not two, but three times over the course of the last two sentences. Now that I think of it, the idea of the great reconvergence makes a whole lot of sense, and explains a lot. Perhaps what China is going through now in terms of innovation is a near equivalent to what the West experienced a while ago, when it left the East in the dust...China had abandoned innovation, but started to re-ignite it recently. Interesting.

Finally, I want to look at how Fergie Ferg claimed that some great civilizations operate on the edge of chaos...it makes sense. Again, something that I had never thought about before. In my opinion, our country really is always on the edge of chaos. We're just lucky that it's working (I guess) at the moment. At any time, it could fall apart. It's probably best to keep as many people happy possible I suppose.

The end.

For lack of a creative title...

1) This last chapter was set up to discuss the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires. It meshed the three together into one chapter, and sometimes meshed all three into different sections of the chapter. I really hated how the textbook went about doing this. I prefer organization and separation. Of course, it would not be realistic for the textbook to have three separate chapters on these three empires, however, it would have been nice for there to be some clear defining lines within the one chapter that they were tossed together into. Had the textbook dedicated a separate third of the chapter to each of these empires (so that each had a clear, obvious spotlight), the information would have been much easier to absorb and comprehend upon reading it the first time. In my opinion, the textbook's method of addressing these three places really didn't work out at all.

2) During this time period, there was a huge spring of global interaction around the world. In my opinion, I honestly think that this was a good thing for the world. It was helpful: different places recieved goods and products that they could not produce or had never seen before, culture was spread and evolved, religions evolved, etc. etc. etc. I think that this is a good thing, because it was a trying time for most defined and established cultures. They had to recieve new thinking and ideas, and incorporate them into their lifestyles (if they chose to do so) whilst preserving their culture. In addition, this allowed the people of the world to get to know their neighbors a little bit better. Sure, maybe sometimes they decided "hey, you suck, let's fight.", but other times they might have said, "hey man, you're ok. Here, take my llama, I'll have some of your smoke." So overall, it allowed people to develop a more wider understanding of the world around them.

Nothing compares to driving around while blasting "Scenes From an Italian Restaurant". Nothing.

Fucan religiously attacks the views of Christianity by both condemning the the beliefs of the Christians and by glorifying the views of Buddhism. He speaks of Buddhism in an enlightening way, and describes it as though it saved him. He also attacks Christianity by deeming it evil and barbaric, criticizing some Christian's martyr practices. He culturally attacks Christianity by claiming that it seeks to eliminate Japan's culture and customs, saying that Christian missionaries seek to "import the customs of their own countries," into Japan. Therefore, he is asserting that Christianity seeks to culturally destroy Japan. He attacks Christianity in a historical fashion by highlighting his awe for Japan's history - a Christianity-free history. He speaks of Japan as the "Land of the Gods" - Buddhist Gods, of course. He is asserting that this is the way that history should continue - uninterrupted by the advances of the Christian religion. In a political aspect, he attacks Christianity by condemning its missionaries for usurping countries such as Luzon and Nova Hispana and consuming them into its faith. His social attack on Christianity stems from his complaining about how "evil" it is and such - he is spreading social propaganda to prevent people form joining into the rank of Christians by spreading negative word about it. Should people hear such verbal condemnation, they would have a great deal of deterrance towards thinking of following it.

I just really, really want it to be summer.

The following are all links of showme's that, when combined, form my group's summary of Chapter 26 of the history textbook.

Part 1: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=jlGPHfs
Part 2: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=k4a0MLI
Part 3: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=iwh3SQi
Part 4: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=JFOqKUi
Part 5: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.showme.com%2Fsh%2F%3Fh%3DEfIKRiC&h=JAQGhAGLE

Please let this Friday end.

After reading for this weekend, I think I have an idea of what capitalism kinda is. At the same time though, I'm a little confused and I'm not sure if I'm correct.

Anyways, the way I see it, capitalism is an economic system focused on markets and how the market works. Capitalism is a system that promotes the production and manufacturing of new goods through new techniques of manufacturing, promoted by competition between merchants that are fighting for higher and higher profits. It rests on the element of supply and demand - the amount of a product available and the actual need of the people for said product. It drove society in a more economic, financially based direction, and heightened the standard of life for those that it affected, as the profit generated by the system contributed to a generally wealthier public - for example, those in the country whose labor was used by merchants looking to produce more goods quickly and cheaply.

Dear snow: go away. I hate you.

I believe Christendom began to change simply due to the changing ideas and thoughts of the people of Europe during the time period. When people began to think in different ways provoked by the Renaissance, their opinions and ideals of what their religious faith should entail changed and evolved. To have simply one dominant religion would not be enough for an area, as people all have completely different values. As people began to alter their own faiths, Christendom began to branch apart, and form new religions that had been based on their origin with the Roman Catholic faith.

In terms of capitalism, I can honestly say that I don't really have any idea of what it is whatsoever. I feel like that is weird and it is something that I should know, but no one has ever told me what it is before. All I know about it is what the book said about it in our reading from last night - the fact that it caused growing competition in the markets, which caused the production of more quality goods. Other than that, I have no idea. But whenever I hear the term it sounds like it is being used in a negative connotation? That's all I got.