Latin American Revolution

In class, we were given the essential question, "Why is it essential to acknowledge any human regardless of race? How are the events in Latin American revolutions evidence of this social imperative?" , and each group was asked to give an answer. We were separated into groups so that each group could study one revolution and then share what they found to the class. My group used opinions rather than statistics to answer the essential question, since it's such a simple answer: it is essential to acknowledge any human regardless of race because no matter their ethnic background, we are all human. However, throughout time the treatment of people revolves around many things, prominently their race. Using the statistics given in class it's easy to prove that the Europeans were seen as superiors to everyone else in each society of discussion. Though they were all separate societies, they all had very similar social structures, which usually consisted of the Peninsulares making up the top 1%, then the Creoles with 23%, Mestizos with 7%, Mulattoes with 8%, Indian peoples with 50%, and African slaves with the bottom 11% of the population.

The different population sizes between races (there was no timeline photo).

My Group's Timeline:Mexico:

January 1811: Mexican rebellion lead by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla was defeated at Calderón. He was captured and executed.
1820: Liberals took power in Spain and formed a new government that promised reforms to stop Mexican revolutions. Mexican conservatives wanted independence so they could maintain their positions and beliefs.
Early 1821: Agustín de Iturbide, the leader of the Royalist forces, negotiated the plan of Iguala with Victor Guerrero. It made Mexico an independent and constitutional monarchy.  

August 24, 1821: spanish viceroy de o'donoju signed the treaty of Córdoba making Mexico officially an independent constitutional monarchy. 

1822: Iturbide was proclaimed the emperor of Mexico. 

1823: republican leaders Santa Anna and Guadalupe Bictoria turned Mexico into a republic and made Guadaluoe the first president. 

As a part of the assignment, we were asked to find 2 commonalities and 2 differences between all the revolutions. My group's commonalities were that they all wanted independence from another country (Portugal and Spain), and that they were all fighting against European countries (Portugal and Spain in Europe). Our 2 differences were that not all of them were because they wanted independence from another country (Portugal and Spain), and that not all of them were fighting against European countries (Portugal and Spain in Europe). Even though they were all completely different, race had the same amount to do with their successes or failures because more often than not the oppressed race was also the one with the largest population, and the one with all the power and rights had the smallest populations.

Race still has a huge say in the judgement of most modern day people, including authority figures. For example, officer Darren Wilson was not charged for the murder of Michael Brown, but there are people serving prison time for possession of marijuana. I think it is very important to consider the issue of race today because though it's 2014, half of our country is still living in the 1950's, and that just isn't right.

European Revolutions

In class, we have been studying revolutions from all over the world. Most recently, we've discussed the European Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. We were asked to answer the essential question, "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really a failure as historians have said?", and there is no answer that could cover all of those varying topics and all of their own events, victories, and downfalls. In class, we were given a quote on how Alexis de Tocqueville saw the revolutions. He said, "We are sleeping on a volcano. Do you not see that the earth trembles anew? A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon?", which means that at any moment they will erupt into chaos, and that once it spreads it'll be like a windy storm. this is illustrated by the amount of revolutions and repressions and the lack of independence. As a class, we separated into 5 groups, one for each revolution, and studied in-depth articles about our assigned revolution so we could share our answer to the essential question based on our findings.

My group was assigned the Decembrist Revolution of 1825 in Russia, which out of all 5 revolutions was the only one that was a complete failure. The goals of this revolution were to grant a meaningful constitutional change within the government because the people wanted a weaker monarchy, and more rights and opportunities. The revolution started after Tsar (king) Alexander's confusion over his succession. His unexpected death caused the people to think they were entitled to a violent seizure of power, and the slaves saw his passing as an opportunity to gain privileges and rights. The people were mad that Poland, a country below them, had a constitution and they didn't, and it got to the point that people were fighting royal soldiers to support Constantine, who had been next in line to the thrown but turned the position down because he was not interested in so much power, and to try to remove Tsar Nicolas I from power, because he didn't provide the populace with a meaningful constitution, and put Constantine in his place. As a result of his perople's disloyalty, Nicholas shut down any contact with all of Europe as well as any type of freedom especially religious, and forced Russia to become an autocracy. The caste system was strictly enforced. This revolution was an immense failure because rather than gaining a better constitution, Nicholas fought back by showing them he had the ability to cause bloodshed of his people if it meant teachings them a lesson. As an individual Nicholas had more people as a whole, and he used that power to ensure that they got the opposite of everything they asked for, and he even fired on the rebels and severely punished the survivors. 

Survey Monkey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MTRDDSX

Other than the Decembrist, all of the other revolutions were at least slight successes. We also learned about French Revolution of 1848, which ended up having a neutral turn out because they were able to get rid of King Louis Philippe, who was using all of the country's funds for himself as well as the upper class. The people also ended up being under the rule of a republic of radicals, liberals, and socialists.    The French Revolution of 1830 proved to have a mostly ideal outcome in the eyes of the people, because revolutionaries were able to overthrow their unfair leader, Charles X, however Louis Philippe soon became king, causing another failure in government 18 years later. Then, in the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the people fought to get serfdom abolished and to gain basic constitutional rights, which had a neutral outcome because it resulted in the separation of Austria and Hungary. Personaly, I would answer the essential question with a no, since besides the Decembrist all of the revolutions had at least partial success. 

Ideology- Liberalism

During class, we discussed the question: "What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?". The answer is that there were 3; liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. In simple terms, a liberal is someone who has open views or thoughts regarding the government, meaning they would be more than happy to participate in something like a democracy whereas a conservative, who is someone who prefers to stick to old ways, would choose to stay in a monarchy. And finally, a nationalist is someone who advocates for political independence for a country. In class, we separated into groups to make projects about each ideology. My group, got Liberalism. 

Liberals wanted to separate their government from the old ways into a system of freedom , merits and rights rather than old traditions. They wanted a meritocracy over an aristocracy, absolutism and traditional price pages of the church, and to still have clear divisions in society. They just want the ability for people to climb the social and economic ladder. 

Like liberalism, conservatism and nationalism were both represented in the 19th century as well. After viewing all of the presentations we came to find that conservatism was actually the conservation of tradition and monarchy, limited rights. Aristocracy, monarchy, role of the church, and nationalism was a state of temporary alliance between quarreling countries because though countries were at war, they unified to defeat a common enemy. 

Congress of Vienna

This past week in class, we’ve been discussing the Congress of Vienna, which was the gathering of European rulers to decide what to do with territories after Napoleon was no longer in charge. As a class, we were to answer the question “What should people in power do when their power is threatened?”, using the notes taken in class as well as the documents given to us about what the European rulers sought to accomplish, and also an interactive map to show how they changed the boundary lines.

The European rulers who attended the conference didn't have the interest of their people in mind while they made changes in their varying governments, they cared more about regaining and maintaining the money and power they were raised with. During the congress, they even had Beethoven compose an eleven minute symphony for them. One of the of the attendees’ reactions to the new opportunity of power was The Holy Alliance. It was Initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and suggested that monarchs had divine right to rule as they did before Napoleon’s conquest. Also, any revolution was treason against God, and those who participated were punished severely. England is one of the few, if not only country that did not take part. This would ensure that the people would rarely, if not ever revolt against the monarchy. The Congress of Vienna resulted in each of the European countries, besides France, regaining their territory and in most cases even gained land.

I think that with the history of European revolts, the Congress should have given a little more freedom and choice to the people. Had I been a member of the congress, I would have suggested a democracy but would have settled for anything besides divine monarchy. The people need more freedom and opportunity, which they would never get under the rule of a divine monarch.

Napoleon

In class, we have been discussing Napoleon Bonaparte's reign of France, and onto most of the world, in the mid 1800's. It was stated in The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians By Thomas J. Vance that'"Had Bonaparte died in that year," wrote Johnston, "the world would have been left with a totally different impression of him." Napoleon would have been "regarded in the light of something heroic, and remembered as something peculiarly, though perhaps dangerously, fine," according to Johnston. "A great soldier, a great liberator, a great reformer and a great lawgiver....As, however, it was given to him to live for 18 years after this, and to work actively for 12, he has been denounced -- and, it must be confessed, with a certain degree of truth -- as a usurper, a tyrant, and a greedy, egotistical and ambitious ruler, it has also been found impossible to deny that his work, such as it was, was accomplished with an exquisite efficiency almost amounting to perfection."' which explains how he was able to conquer what was estimated to be between 71% and 85% of the world. His political, economic, and social systems had both positive and negative impacts on all tiers of the social pyramid.

Politically, his impact was positive for the poor because of his meritocracy which created an equal playing field for the entire population. He abolished serfdom, which gave the lower class more room to expand their range of opportunity. However, it was negative for the Kings who were in power because they either lost power or had to follow Napoleonic code, which was a strict set of rules written by Napoleon which forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs should go to the most qualified, rather than someone who got their job through relationships or family. It was also negative for church politicians because their power was significantly reduced due to the Napoleonic code.Economically, his impact was positive because he controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals which enabled more opportunity of migration and trade for the people. He established the first bank of France, which gave the people a sense of financial safety as well as a great advantage for the economy. However, it was negative for other countries under his reign, mainly Italy, because he took money from them and put it into the French economy. Socially, his impact was positive because more citizens had rights to property and access to education than had been the case before his rule. Also, he eliminated the importance of titles and equalized classes and abolished serfdom and nobility in a successful attempt to level the playing field of the population.

More specific examples of the systems are real people affected by them, such as Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney.

Marshal Michel Ney, as shown in the document above, was a strict supporter of Napoleon. Though he refers to Napoleon as their "august emperor" which means a respected and admirable ruler, he is also believed to have been most loyal because of his position in Napoleons army, which was very high up which gave him a lot of power. Madame de Stael however, who was once of nobility but lost her status and wealth due to Napoleon's systems, reported him to be unprepared to rule and didn't even care enough to do it properly. She later stated that she thought that under his rule, the countries lost their sense of culture. These separate points of view show that though Napoleon's systems did have positives to certain demographics, they came hand in hand with the negatives of another.

Sources:

Notes taken in class

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

Chocunism

During class, as a lesson of how communism came to be, we played a game to show the economic system during the industrial revolution. Each student was given 2 pieces of candy,aside from 2 students who received between 6 and 10. Then, we had to either lose or gain wealth by playing rock-paper-scissors with our classmates. The poor had the opportunity to become rich, and vise-versa. That was capitalism. The next step taken by the government was socialism, in which the government owns industry and the goal is economic equality in a classless society. Then, after that is communism which is the goal of socialism being met to the point where government isn't even needed. This lesson was fun, until I lost all my candy. However, it was a fun way to learn rather than taking notes.

The invisible hand is an idea to just let people take care of themselves and for the government to leave them and the economy be. Sellers will put their highest quality goods at the lowest price they possibly can, and they will succeed and the economy will grow and thrive. However it does take a while for things and people to become used to it, so the government usually does step in to keep things running. The invisible hand allows people to have a choice and make their own successes and failures, whereas communism would take money from hardworkers to other people. The invisible hand does help the poor, because eventually the prices will get so low that they'll be able to afford them. Years later, Marx's ideas were developed and they threatened the upper class so much that he was exiled. This was because some of them worked hard for their money, and some of them had never had anything less than what they did and were not prepared for change. Though his idea would help the poor, it is thought that had any governments adopted it, nobody would push themselves to improve or become their own people, much like the way it is in North Korea. 

Personally, I'm a fan of the invisible hand, however I do think having someone to represent the country is necessary. Also, if the invisible hand were to be put into play, the country would have to go through a period of depression until the system became normal. 

Option One- US vs GB

During the industrial revolution, the United States and Great Britain had the same common goal yet 2 completely different ways of achieving it. In the United States, mill workers were treated with as much respect and you would expect for people of their social status at the time, whereas in Great Britain people with the same rights as the people who hired them are being treated as slaves.

In Great Britain, children worked 17 hour days which after long periods of time caused deformities such as bones bending or moving over time, bones bending inward or outward, arthritis and many more. It was reported that since there wasn't one kill switch that would turn off the machines all at once, if a child got caught in a machine they'd hardly ever even bother turning it off. Throughout their 17 hour days, the children would get no nourishment aside from fatty meat and potatoes that were usually full of cotton fibers, and that they had to eat at the machines. The children workers were beaten severely if they didn't do their work properly and efficiently, such as William Hughes, a child mill worker, was beaten by his overlookers son to the point where he "couldn't even crawl". Had they not gone to that extreme, the children would have had better conditions. Women were beaten in front of men as to embarrass them, such as flogging them over their [the masters] knee in front of men and boys.This behavior towards workers reflected poorly towards their reputation. 

Image of orphans doing hard and dangerous tasks necessary for the machines to be ran, but too dangerous for anyone to let their children do. (England)

Thanks to the Lowell Experiment, girls in the US were promised amazing working conditions as well as living conditions. They were promised a paternal system, which was the men who ran the mills and the house mothers. Aside from the budget cuts they were doing very well at keeping the girls happy. They had the freedom of making their own decisions and how they'd spend their own money and got an education that they never would have had access to at home, and they received 3 meals a day as well as leisure time. 

The Lowell Experiment was created with the sole purpose of saving girls in the US from meeting the same fate as Great Britain citizens had been for years. The conclusion my class and I have come to throughout these past few weeks of studying the industrial revolution, is that in Great Britain, the mill owners were profit hungry and cared little to none for their workers, but in the US they needed to put the workers first in order to even have workers, and once they hired someone they intended to keep them happy and healthy until they were no longer of use.

MOSI Hangout

During our preparation time during class, we took notes on a video of a man named Jamie as he went through a textile mill museum in England. We learned the correct chronological order of how the the cotton was prepared and what the machines were called and what the did. After taking notes, we gathered in groups to find the correct definition for all the terms said in the video. We then formed questions as a group to as Jamie during our video chat, so we could get a better understanding of the topics we were a bit more curious about such as how long it took to make a full finished piece of cloth.

(picture taken during video chat of a painting of the mills. The image shows and orphan child cleaning underneath a loom)

During the video chat, we were taught a more in-depth story of how the mills really were in England than most documents could have shown. We found out that as a woman was working a loom, if a piece of thread were to break, she would have to stop it, put it to her mouth and inhale the oil and other toxic materials, and then re-thread it. Women did that about once a minute, which is the reason lung cancer was so common for mill workers. Just that one example shows that not only were the mill workers put in danger, the people designing the machines and running the mills didn't even care enough to make the machines safer for the workers. During the cottage industry, an entire family would gather to the hand loom in the attic, where they'd have the best and longest access to sunlight, and work all day for one or more weeks to make one piece of cloth that they could sell for profit at a market place. Each part of the machine was designed for a different member of the family, for example the children would have the easiest job, the mother and/or oldest daughter would have the second easiest job, and the father and/or oldest son would have the hardest job. Then, upon the beginning of textile mills, men were almost completely dropped out of the equation. The jobs were divided between women and children, and relatives were usually grouped into one room together. The process of making cloth was split up to one-step-per-machine, and the case was often that one factory would complete a step then ship it to another factory to do the next step and so on and so forth. Also, we learned that as the machines progressed, they also became louder, causing most workers to become deaf. As the machines progressed, conditions for workers became worse since it was the start of the urbanization, and the people were working and living very close. The cities built houses for the people too quickly and without care for the quality. Many people lived in one house together if there was a lack of space. Sanitation wasn't much of a concern for the people in charge, so there could have been up to 125 per toilet, which at the time was more of a bucket, and since the workers got so little time, the last person to use it usually chucked the waste into the street and it then seeped into the water supply which caused diseases to spread. But in the cottage industry, you'd be poorer but have better living conditions. Industrialization made the world better because it gave jobs to the poor, and necessary goods to the people who could buy them, but it was also one of the leading causes of death during that time.

Personally, I think this was an amazing learning opportunity. If we had the ability to have this inside access to every unit this year, I think my classmates as well as myself would learn greatly from it. I enjoyed being able to hear from a primary source what his actual experiences and accurate knowledge contained.

A Curator Must Do Many Things

 My group and I were assigned to make an exhibit on child labor during the Industrial Revolution. After much discussion, we decided to name the exhibit Condemning the Innocent, because after extensive research both within and outside of the documents given to us, we found that it was very rare that a child worked in a mill or mine willingly, and they usually only did because the poverty was so bad that their families had no other options. My group and I, somehow, didn't run into any major problems other than not having enough space for all of our pictures , which was easily fixed by simply letting some of them hang off of the sides. Throughout our research, I think the think that surprised me the most was a photograph taken of a young boy who worked in the mills. He appeared to be between 9 and 11, and his clothes were dirty and torn and his growth and posture had been stunted from excessive hard labor on his developing body.  After making the exhibit,I learned that I should be grateful for not only being able to get an education, but that I don't have to get up before the crack of dawn to get there. Also, I learned that if I had been alive during this era in England, I would have faced the same fate as the girls  described in an excerpt of Bobbin Girls which explains what the working conditions were like, and is shown in out exhibit.

During this project, each group was assigned a different topic. For example, my group, group D, were assigned child labor. Group A did their exhibit on the different types of spinning wheels were used in the textiles, and who/how they were operated. Since children of as young as 5 were allowed to work in the mills, better and safer wheels were made to appeal more to potential women and children employees. Group B's exhibit was about the new kinds of transportation invented during this time period, specifically the steam engine. The steam engine allowed people to go far distances in a shorter period of time than they would be able to through other forms of transportation. During this period, this technology was so new that they took going 150 miles in 32 hours as an amazing breakthrough, where we'd see that as excruciatingly slow. Group C was assigned the topic of pollution that came from the new machines in the air in water. The most striking thing included in the exhibit was an image of a street in Manchester, England completely covered in nasty and polluted water. Finally, group E made their exhibit about the increase in slaves being brought into the U.S.. Since the demand for textile goods were rising as well as the amount of mills being built, they needed more cheap/free labor. In my opinion, his assignment has been a very important learning opportunity to show the students involved the different aspects of the Industrial Revolution and how it affected the working class people alive during that era. 

Smart Research Skills Are A Must

Over the past few weeks in History class, we've been learning the correct ways to find information that is not only accurate, but also authentic and reliable. In class, we played A Google A Day and the researched the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus.

A Google A Day is a game made by Google to teach people to safely and efficiently find information by providing a broad question and as the game went on, the questions got harder and harder. On http://www.agoogleaday.com/#game=started , each member of our group was able to use their devices to put together the puzzle that would lead to the answer of the question. Personally, I think A Google A Day is something every high school student should use at least once to see the proper ways to do research on a broad topic. In my class, each group was put against each other to see who could find the most correct answers withing the time given to us, which gave us an extra push to find the answers fairly and time efficiently. Though some answers were tough to crack which did lead to frustration, it taught me that when researching a specific topic you should search broader questions so you et a wider set of information to choose from.

Also during class, we were told to make our own definitions to the 3 things to look for when finding a good source: accuracy, authenticity, and reliability. Accurate information is precise, which means that it is true. Authentic information is real and genuine, meaning the source in which the information came from has to be valid. Reliability means that the source is of trusted and good quality. When looking for information, it's preferable that it be from someone who's specialty is the topic of discussion. We were told to look at http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ , which is a link to a website about Pacific Northwest Tree Octopi. This website lacks accuracy, authenticity and reliability, since the information is not true nor genuine, and the source is not of good quality.



"Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus"
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

A Gift From Our Ancestors

During class, we've been researching the Industrial Revolution and how it's changed the world. Because of the great minds of that time that sparked the revolution, we've been given all kinds of new resources that have progressed into so much more over the year.

In relation to textiles, from the time of their invention to when they started being used for huge industrial purposes, there were 3 major people who developed to that change. In 1740 by John Kay patented the flying shuttle, which is a tool used in textiles to make it possible for a single person to weave multiple, thicker fabrics. In 1764, James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny, which is a machine made with more than one spindle at a time. In 1769 the water frame was invented by Richard Arkwright and was used to use water to power a spinning frame rather than other, more costly resources. These men made not only the development of the Industrial Revolution go more swiftly, but have made the rest of the world in modern times better off.

In order for the revolution to really take off, they needed large supplies of natural resources to keep their new inventions functioning. For example, coal, which was for the most part used to give power to things, was used to run steam engines. Coal was also used to produce another resource, iron, from iron ore. Within the textiles, cotton, yet another resource, was used to produce goods such as clothes.


An image of within a textile mill, circa 1765.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_manufacture_during_the_Industrial_Revolution#mediaviewer/File:Powerloom_weaving_in_1835.jpg

To get this information, I used notes taken in class as well as the Biography section of Wikipedia.

John Green's Crash Course Video on the Industrial Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhL5DCizj5c&feature=youtu.be

A Gift From My Community To Me

Hi! My name is Nora Jerrett and I am a new sophomore at RMHS. In my opinion, things that make a teacher great are things that a student can use to his or her advantage not only within the classroom, but also while at home. Throughout my experience, things learned through interactive lessons such as games or even notes thoroughly discussed in class have stuck with me more than things learned in lectures and excessive note taking. Also, some of the things that have helped me the most throughout my years in school are things learned when I was one on one with a teacher before or after school, where I can openly ask them questions on certain areas of discussion. However, taking notes is inevitable, and when we do take notes it really helps to review them in class so I don't just end up forgetting the information I just wrote down. In eighth grade, my English teacher, Mr.James, used real life examples to help teach us lessons, such as how he told us a story of his childhood to teach us suspense, which really helped us because i showed us how to make school to life connections. Last year, my history teacher, Ms.Gleason kept us interested by giving us daily in-class projects that required us to work from our own minds rather than a sheet of directions, though it did get a bit overwhelming at times. Also last year, my Spanish teacher, Sr.Binaghi made us act out new vocabulary words to we'd remember them better, and also made good relationships with all of his students and made his classroom feel like a safe environment to be open and make mistakes. Of all these teachers, they gave me both positive and negative feedback to help me improve, made class exciting and not a burden to walk into every day, and were open to helping me not only during class but also before or after school, and I would be very thankful if you would as well.

http://passageworks.org/integrated-curriculum-honoring-the-inner-life-in-academic-content/

John Green's Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x78PnPd-V-A&feature=youtu.be

After watching John Green's video, I must say I do agree with him that it is my duty to use my education to do great things. Personally, I would like to pursue a career in the medical field, and without the resources such as smart boards, libraries, computers, and text books provided to me by my community's tax dollars, that would never even be an option. My goal is to have an appealing list of extra curriculars such as sports, clubs, and of course a good GPA, and everything I need to achieve that goal is provided to me by the money given by my neighbors. I know that mandatory is a very new, and amazing gift and I have no intention of getting distracted and putting that money to waste.