Tuesday, December 9, 2014

The War on Andrew Jackson

Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not? These are the questions we strive to answer, even today, as we look back on the history of our Presidents. Andrew Jackson had many faults and campaigns that left his look on morality and justice a lot to be desired. The first of these was when he invented the Spoils system, a corrupt form of government where Jackson put his supporters in office in return for votes. This in turn lead to many people being sacked from office and even, in one disastrous instance, a large robbery that cost the government over a million dollars. 
      Even the Indians were not a fan as they had to pick up their stuff and move hundreds of miles west to avoid the white settlers moving farther across America. Since the Indians were not technically under our law, Congress passed a law saying that they were. They were forced to march across what is now known as the Trail of Tears. 
     And the thing that Jackson is most known for is the Bank War. Jackson said that the Second Bank of America was corrupted and just a way for the rich to get richer. They had to much power outside of public responsibility. Jackson was threatened by this and decided to veto the bill that extended the banks charter. This was veiwed as irresponsable. 
  Jackson has been veiwed in many lights and in my opinion he did not deserve the reputation as "The people's president". This is becasue he was so horrible and irresponsable durring his presidency by making all of these decisions. Me and my group did a project on that very thing:


Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Our Poster on The Rise of Democracy

Throughout time, people have always tried to create a type of government that will keep their nations in check. Democracy has been one of those governments. A Democracy is a system of government in which each citizen has a direct say. And the United States was not very democratic in the early 1800's. This was because the system in which they used to vote and elect officials was not very stable. The system dictated that only men who owned property land could vote. People were not able to own property all of the time. So the countries ability to function suffered greatly and not all people were able to express their views.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

How to be Remembered



                         DBQ: How should Toussaint Louverture be remembered?
                                                      By Kate McReynolds

     How would you want to be remembered? With a Memorial? Or perhaps with a long poem describing your many attributes? Well, that’s not really the choice of the person who is being remembered. The same goes for Toussaint Louverture, a freed slave from the island once known as Saint Domingue. The island was named Saint Domingue after the French took control of the western half. This island was a major contributor in agricultural ways. By 1780, the 8,000 plantations were producing more than half of the worlds coffee and 40% of the worlds sugar. When the French Revolution swept by in 1789, the slaves were inspired to start a revolution of their own. Toussaint rose through the ranks and emerged a leader. He was appointed commander-in-chief of the army. Soon slavery was abolished in the colonies in 1794.  But as Napoleon, the new emperor of France, talked of reinstating slavery Toussaint turned against France. His efforts were held at bay when he was captured and held in prison, where he later died. The work of the slaves against the invasion of the French forces in 1802 helped bring this small colony to it’s freedom in 1804. So how should Toussaint Louverture be remembered, in view of his work in the revolution? As a liberator of slaves, Toussaint did more good by freeing his people and giving dignity to the colony. He also used his stance as a liberator of slaves to help with being  a military commander or a ruler of Saint Domingue.
     As a man who was once a slave himself, Toussaint knew what the people felt as they worked for the empowered whites. Toussaint had been freed by a kind owner and had been able to become a respected man once the French began to speak of abolishing slavery and to have it turned on him when Napoleon came into power. The rage he felt was unimaginable when he wrote to the French government this letter, “Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look on calmly while it is taken from them! They bore their chains when they knew no condition of life better than that of slavery. But today when they have it, if they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected again to slavery...”(Document B). Toussaint wrote this letter to Napoleon to hopefully stop the reinstating of slavery. The French Government received it and the message it installed was very clear: that Toussaint and the people in Saint Domingue would gladly fight for their freedom. As the deed was done and war was inevitable, Toussaint still tried to go about it in a diplomatic way. He still tried to keep the battlefield clean and fair, even if the odds were against Saint Domingue. In this way, he was able to help the people and keep them respected by bigger enemies. Toussaint also pointed out that taking the freedom from someone who had only ever had a taste of it was wrong and that it would almost destroy the people if they were forced to go back. He was helping the slaves by telling the French Government by telling them this.
     Military leaders are hard to come by but Toussaint was one that stuck. He Helped defend his people and helped do many things that helped drive the people towards freedom. Toussaint was able to get the confidence of the army he lead and keep the soldiers ready for the coming fight. Toussaint helps his army when he described here, “By his genius and surpassing activity, Toussaint levied fresh forces, raised the reputation of the army, and drove the English and Spanish from the island...”(Document F) Tousaint was able to keep the freedom of the people from the enemies. But he did have some questionable ways of going about it. He burned the town of Samana so as to keep Napoleon from gaining land and forced them to follow the armies to the alps. Toussaint taught the slaves to fight in a gentlemen style and Gorilla style so as to keep a leg up on the enemy. When Napoleon arrived in the mountains the black slaves overpowered their forces. Toussaint used his abilities as a liberator of slave to gain his victories. When he was seen as such, power emanated from him. He was able to give the slaves a right to fight for themselves by freeing them.
   Saint Domingue was technically still under French rule even under Toussaint Louverture. Toussaint did his best to be a good ruler. But even as he went on things began to get worse. As described here, “Any Manager or driver of a plantation upon which a foreign cultivator shall have taken refuge shall denounce him to the captain or commander of the section within 24 hours under penalty of one week in prison.”(Document D) As his rule progressed, Toussaint began to see the cracks in his country. The people needed stronger rules but suspected Toussaint of holding the hand of the whites on the island. He needed to keep people in line so he created different rules and restrictions. Anyone who was seen violating these restrictions would automatically be sent to jail or court. Toussaint was taking a stronger tone with the slaves he helped to free, because that they needed structure. And that worked for a time, until the slaves began to revolt. Whatever Toussaint did, he always had his credit to the slaves for freeing them. He had helped them discover their potential and freedom.
     Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a man who helped set the Island of Saint Domingue free. He used all of his abilities to achieve that goal and was very successful, considering That the island was later named an independent nation in 1804. His life is credited to that great feat and always will be.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

The Impact of Race in the Latin American Revolutions

Race is everywhere. In the news, on the adds we see. And in our class we have been studying the impact it has had the Latin American Revolutions. Why is it essential top acknowledge the human value regardless of race? How are the events of the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? To further understand and answer these questions, our class split into groups and made timelines of the different revolutions. After that, we were asked to jigsaw and combine with other groups to identify what was the same and what was different about each revolution.


















   The timeline above is a summary of the revolution in Brazil. Brazil had it's own problem in race because, after the ruler John VII was of the throne, his son Pedro began to discriminate on who he kept in office based on if they were Born in Portugal. Pedro VI didn't want anyone who was different from him. The other countries, Mexico and Gran Colombia had similar problems. All three countries had started the revolutions in order to change their form of government and get rid of monarchies. Mexico had wanted a constitutional monarchy, as had Brazil, and both had found it in another ruler. Gran Colombia, however, had wanted a Republic. The way all three countries had gone about it was different. Brazil had been very peaceful in the way it had transformed it's country. There hadn't been any huge battles or blood baths. Mexico had been peaceful but forceful, so right down the middle. Gran Colombia had been very military in the way it had performed it's own revolutions. Things were handled very promptly.
    Race is always an important topic. Especially today, when even the smallest mentioning of a racial joke is met with firearms and a prison sentence. We see Race a a thing that needs to be dealt with and talked about so it doesn't put up barriers in the future. This is evident in the classes we have in school or the programs people are forced to take in the different jobs they have. The killing in Ferguson is one of the more extreme incidents that had to with race. It had to do with a white police officer shooting a black man for looking suspicious. The problem with racism and race is the fact that we all take it way too seriously. I do not excuse the fact that a man was shot and killed because of it. But there will always be differences between race. And we make it much worse by talking about it. If everyone would accept the differences and be open to the similarities then the problems would most likely disappear. However, this is only a theory. Race will always remain one of the subjects we either avoid or over analyze.

Monday, November 10, 2014

The Amazingly Disastorous Revolutions in 1830 and 1848

Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded? That is the question. My class has delved deep into the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. We have learned many things about how the different Revolutions functioned. To further help this endeavour, we were asked, in groups, to make a survey and test each other on what we knew. My group created a survey on the Great Revolution of 1830. The link to the survey is below. 
French 1830 #1
French 1830 #2

    Revolution of France in 1830 was a moderate success in the fact that nothing was done. The people were able to get a new king but the only the middle and upper classes were able to prosper. The revolution started on July 25 with the death of Louis XVIII and Charles X taking the throne. Charles X was and absolutist so he was very strict in how he ran his kingdom. In this quote he suspends the press and basically takes away freedom of speech, "The liberty of the periodical press is suspended. …In consequence no newspaper or periodical or semi-periodical work, established or to be established, without discrimination as to the matters which shall be treated therein, shall appear, either in Paris or in the departments, except in virtue of an authorization, which the authors and the printer thereof shall have separately obtained from us."(1) Charles X basically takes away the rights of the people in one foul swoop. And he doesn't stop there. He also revokes the right to vote and limits it to certain people.
    The peoples natural reaction is to revolt and to take back the throne. Charles X was forced to leave Paris and abdicate his throne. After the horrible fiasco, the french people wanted a king who would do what they wanted. So they elected Louis Phillipe, also known as the citizen king. He was much more understanding to the people and would take their opinions to heart. The French people rejoice in the new king in this quote, "The Duke of Orleans (Louis Philippe) is devoted to the national and constitutional cause; he had always defended its interests and professed its principles. He will respect our rights…we shall assure ourselves by laws all the necessary guarantees in order to render liberty strong and durable:"(1) Louis Phillipe was so beloved because he kept the Interests of the people at heart. He often would go around in the street and shake hands with well wishers. The revolution was a moderate success because they were able to get rid of the tyrants but not able to help everyone on the whole. 
    The revolutions we read and researched are basically all the same. Most of them are failures. Like the French revolution of 1848. Louis Phillipe gradually fell into corruption and the time for revolution was once again in the air. The economic state fell into a recession and the people were forced to make some hard decisions. The revolts that began started to get out of control and Louis Phillipe abdicated. The Second Republic was formed. The nephew of Napoleon, Louis Napoleon took over and did nothing but bring France down into further decay. This revolution was a failure because it did not end up resulting in anything good. The french people did nothing but get out of one political pyramid and then fall back into another. Nothing was accomplished and nothing good came from the chaos. 
   Another fruitless revolution was the Frankfurt Assembly. The Frankfurt Assembly's goal was to give Germany a constitution. This was decided after years of hard famine and economic times. The people were forced into struggle and the upper and middle classes had most of the perks. The assembly met and offered Prussia's Frederick William IV the crown of a united Germany. To their dismay, the conservative king rejected the offer because it had no divine right in it and had come from the general populace. Many people revolted, again and were killed and sent to prison. Others left for America and the promise of a better life. This Assembly had a purpose but was unable to fulfill it and then gave up, resulting in deaths by the hundreds. Not an ideal outcome. 
    In 1848, Hungary had it's own little revolution. Austrian revolts broke out, taking everyone by suprise. Metternich, who had dominated Austrian politics for more than 30 years, tried to get them to stop but couldn't and fled in disguise. The Austrian King refused to do anything about it. Many other revolutions sprouted up. Eventually the king was forced to reconsider and change. But it was short lived and many died as the Austrians gained control again. The only reason that this is a moderate failure is that the people were able to get Metternich out. he had been horrible for the country. But since everything was reversed and undone, no actual change occurred and the revolution was another bust. 
      




1- All documents below were published in: Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed. The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of
the History of France, 1789 – 1901. (Minneapolis: HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pd

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

19th Century Ideologies

    We have thought a lot about Nationalism, Liberalism and Conservatism in the past few days. And we have asked this question, "What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?" And we debunked it by forming groups and made one minute projects to support one of the Ideologies. In class, the groups went head to head in a battle for the most informative project. The groups who won went off with the feeling of triumph for having helped the class learn something. Those who lost had to content themselves with only the knowledge they gained. 



    Our group project is above. It details the ideology Nationalism. The setting is in Germany and a Frenchman comes in to ask the way but instead gets an ear full of how Germany is a Nationalistic country. Mike, the boy in the jersey, tells Anna, the foreigner, that his people were united by natural boundaries as well as culture, history and language. This is the definition of Nationalism. People in the 19th century were not thought of as the same nations we think of today. You were English or French if you spoke the native tongue and had a concept of their history. Not if you lived there. Nationalists helped change the political climate by getting rid of foreign rulers who divided them. It was demeaning and weakening. Socially, the people would come together to push towards what they believed was their historic destinies. This, in turn, guided them towards Liberalism. 
         The other two ideologies that we discussed in class were Conservatism and Liberalism. Other groups had to tell about these topics just as mine did. Liberalism was shown as the idea that the government had the responsibility to hold the people's interests at heart and to do what was best for them. This meant getting rid of older monarchy and establishing new systems and traditions. Liberals believed in meritocracy, which meant you were put into office based on what you could do for the country and not wealth of social standing. This changed the political scale. It also changed the social scale by making everyone equal and eliminating hierarchy of classes. That was what appealed to the Nationalists. 
   Conservatism was very different from the others.Where Liberalism believed in breaking free of old binds, Conservatism held firm that tradition was the only guide in both social and political matters. They believed that tradition lead to violence and bloodshed and used the French Revolution to support most of their claims. In the Revolution, change lead to the death of millions. Most of the people who believed in this idea were upper class, as keeping the old traditions helped them stay in power and wealth. Most political ideas stayed the same and social classes thrived under this thought. 

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Napoleon's Mark

     Most of the world will never forget Napoleon Bonaparte. He has had such an impact on Europe and most of the America's by leading new ideas into the social, economical and political systems that both benefited and deprived the people he ruled. Some were opposed to his ideas and some were behind them to the fullest extent. Madame de Stael, Marshal Micheal Ney, and an essay by Thomas J. Vance show different perspectives on how Napoleon's rule was viewed.
      Most of the people who had been well treated in the years before Napoleon were not too thrilled when he came into power. Especially not Madame de Stael. She had some very forceful opinions and expressed them when she said, "I do not believe Bonaparte became head of the government he had yet formulated a plan for the monarchy.(1)" In this quote, Madame is very angry at Napoleon for taking away the monarchy and the system in which that encroached. It is understandable, considering that Madame would have benefited greatly from the monarchy instead of having to scrounge for food like the proletariat(the Poor). Napoleon changed the way the country was run politically by making himself the one ruler and changed it socially by getting rid of the social classes. People were put into class and social standing by skills instead of birthplace and wealth. He also made education mandatory for most people he ruled, meaning people could be educated on how to run a business. This was more competition for others and less resources for wealthy landowners. Napoleon was the proletariat's hero.
      Napoleon attracted a lot of followers by winning wars and conquering most of Europe. He won the respect of everyone around him by showing immense battle skill and strategy. One of his most adamant followers, Marshal Michael Ney, gushes when he says, "Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august emperor, comes to confirm it. Soldiers, have often lead you to victory. Now I would escort you to join this immortal legion which the Emperor Napoleon conducts to Paris, and which in a few days will reach the capital.(1)" Although this was said after Napoleon was exiled, it still should how he rallied such a questionable force. With that force, he was able to conquer most of Europe and get better resources for France. Napoleon could take as much as he wanted from any of the countries he had control over. Such as Italy, Austria, Holland, Portugal, Prussia, Egypt, Venice, Belgium, Moscow Rhineland and Sweden. And a bonus was that, with control over Spain and Portugal, came the control over most of the Americas at that time. Scary when one person can control so much.
      Today. looking back, we see Napoleon as a distant figure who doesn't really matter. But he did. Without him, most of Europe wouldn't be the way it is and we certainly wouldn't have any of the land we do. It's because of Napoleon that we have the land from the Louisiana Purchase in our country. Thomas J. Vance takes the time to write about many different people who had a lot to saw about the tiny ruler. He quotes a famous and almost inaccessible one when he says, "In his 1885 book, The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political and Military, Boston's John C. Ropes wrote, 'While we do not hesitate to speak with proper severity of Napoleon's reckless course in 1813 and 1814, of his obstinate adherence to a military solution of the difficulties which encompassed his Empire, of his indifference as a soldier to the evils of war, of his forgetfulness as soldier of his duties as a sovereign, -- while we recognize these defects and faults, let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity.'(2)"   This quote and this author are saying the exact same thing. Napoleon was both good and bad for his country in all aspects. He did questionable things, like pillaging some of the countries he conquered and bring the loot back to France, such as paintings from Italy. He tried to single-handily control all of Europe and, if the opportunity had presented itself, probably most of the world. But Napoleon did to great things too. He introduced education in countries that didn't have it, controlled prices, pushed in new industry and abolished titles of nobility and serfdom. He even overthrew the Directory which was doing a horrible job of ruling France. 
   The effects that Napoleon had on his country far outweigh his true nature or thought process. He did many great and horrible things that are to be counted against or for him. I personally think that the way he ruled was good for Europe in the short term, but not in the long term. Napoleon lost sight of who he was as a ruler and then was exiled for punishment. He set up good foundations for the future but wasn't good enough in the present and he suffered for it. Napoleon left his mark that way. 

Citations:
1.

2. Vance, Thomas J. "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians." The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians. Napoleon Series, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Marx and Adams as We Know Them

    Have you ever thought that chocolate and some classmates could help you decide how you stood on Capitalism, Communism and Socialism? Well, they can. In class, we were given a certain amount of chocolates and then we had to get up and play rock, paper, scissors to get the other's. But some people were given more than the rest. The class, after playing for a while, decided the same thing: it was generally unfair. Some lost all their chocolate and had to sit down after only the first round. Others won a lot of chocolate. This was defined as Capitalism. Another time, our teacher decides that she would take all of our candy and then redistribute it to the class in the same amount. As we played the game, we would be given more of the same amount. That was defined to us as Socialism. And the last game was that  we would all be forced to share the candy equally and unselfishly. This was Communism. It was easy to understand and that was how we were introduced to the three ideas.
     During a time were capitalism was in  abundance, Karl Marx observed it and noted how he thought it could be worked out. He thought that the poor would eventually rise up and the government would have to be regulated to Socialism, so that everything would be equal. And if all went well, we could be trusted to go to Communism. But there was another system that could have worked in theory. Adam Smith thought that the people should be allowed to do whatever they wanted. And the economy would follow the natural flow of supply and demand and regulate itself. The government wouldn't need control anything. But the economy would take a very long time to regulate and have drastic effects as it did.
   I do not think that either of these theories would work. Karl Marx's would not work because everyone wants to be ahead of their friends and would be driven by competition. A mind set like that would never work with both Communism and Socialism because each need to be perfectly sustained. Adam Smith's would not work either because the economy would not regulate in time and many people would be forced into starvation and death. Plus, people can't be trusted to regulate even the economy. It would skyrocket to unpayable fees and everything would fall into ruin. The system we have now are probably the best way to compromise on both systems. It limits both of them in such a way that we can prosper and grow. So it's pretty great for now.



Thursday, October 2, 2014

The Industrial Revolution for Women

Women throughout the time of the War of 1812 have been relied on to help with the farm. But as more technology was made and farming took a back seat to other ways of producing, they became just another mouth to feed. It became harder and harder for women to find jobs until one fateful day. The mills were born!! As workers were needed, the women were easy to send off. The men and boys were needed to help on the farm still but women were free. So most packed up their bags and headed to Lowell.
    Most women were motivated to start a life for themselves. To break out of what they thought was a men's world and become a standing work force. The experiences taught them much. Girls could begin to read and write while earning a wage to send home and buy new city clothes. They learned about politics and how to become better workers. But the costs were still there. The work was hard and many girls suffered from health problems. It made the younger children have growth deficiencies and nutrition problems. They barley rested. Plus, the pay was eventually lowered so the girls were forced to work twice and much for the same amount. 
     Even with these advancements in the times, women were still looked on as inadequate. When the girls were recruited for the jobs at the mills, they were told they would have to follow a strict moral code and obey certain curfews. They had a strong set of rules to uphold the standards of the mills and morality of the girls. A Boardinghouse keeper to oversee the girls when not working. Every part of the girls day was thoroughly seen. These were the only jobs available to girls even if they didn't like the work and wanted to try something different. Attitudes toward women hadn't changed in the fact that people still thought that they ere only good at so many things. People concluded that women were only good for house work and weaving cloth. It became quite demeaning for the women.


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Manchester MOSI Google chat

   It's amazing what technology can do. Today in class we used Google chat to call someone half way across the world. We met Jamie, a curator at a famous Museum in Manchester, England. And yes, he had the authentic British accent complete with funny way of saying things we use everyday. It was quite fascinating, really because Jamie took the camera around and showed us different machines and how they worked. He explained the exhibits and answered any questions we had, while demonstrating himself. We prepared for the chat by practicing our searching skills and looked up some common terms from back in the day. We also drafted questions and asked them so as to get a better understanding of what life was like in the mills. Jamie helped us to really experience it all first hand.
   The textile process is one that has been very long and very hard to do for a long time. You take a natural fiber and turn it into cloth. That is not easy. The whole process, we learned has a variety of steps. First the cotton would need to be sorted, then straighted then twisted and then woven into an intricate pattern. That's the short version. Writing the whole process would take the whole paragraph. But Jamie was kind enough to tell us how each machine worked. He told us about the workers too. I never guessed that it could have been so horrible. The toilets were bad and waste was thrown out into the street to clean out chamber pots. This caused disease to spread like wildfire. The workers developed health problems because of the cotton fibers they breathed in all day and were eventually too sick to work. Children had to clean the machines while they were running to avoid fire hazards and were sometimes caught in process and horribly disfigured or crushed. And the machines damaged your hearing because they were so loud and you stood by then all day. I can't even imagine it. All of this information was truly shocking. But I don't hesitate in saying that without this suffering we wouldn't have had things like sick pay and unions to keep the workers healthy and paying bills. We also wouldn't have higher pay and safety features to keep us alive. We wouldn't have had all of this if it hadn't been for these trials. but we would all say we wish it didn't have to be this way. 
    This experience is a positive influence on my learning because we got to hear from a real person who was an expert instead of a lifeless textbook. I did learn more because I was interested in the topic and could interact with the person who was teaching. I liked that we could actually see him touch the machines and turn them on so it could be demonstrated was the way they worked. The only thing that was bad was how the sound and picture kept getting delayed. But other than that it was great. I wouldn't hesitate to do it again. 


Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Revolution Lessons

   Throughout this past week, our class has been working on a project outlining a certain aspect on the Industrial Revolution. I had four others in my group and  our topic was Transportation. We were given research and pictures to look at and organize. We learned a lot about Transportation. We also learned that the steam engine was one of the inventions that started the whole craze in Europe and eventually America. When we finished, we were allowed to hang up our poster and look at the others. We looked at it as if we were a curator. It was a really fun project.


There are a great many steps in the curator process. Many of them include going beyond the service. The first few steps have to do with research and figuring out how to make the viewer learn as much a possible. Next, they have to do with getting the information across in a effective way and citing their sources. Being a Curator requires a lot of hard, independent work, and the Curators have to be willing to do it to the last otherwise your exhibit will fall behind. I think that Curator is a fun job in itself because you get to devote yourself to a subject for a while to really learn the ins and outs. But at the same time, you have to stay on that one subject at all times instead of branching out and exploring ways it relates to other subjects. So being a Curator has its pros and cons. To it seems like more pros than cons, though.

Four other groups worked on other aspects of the Industrial Revolution. But they all came up with really cool ways to show and exhibit the ideas and research. The first one was called Is the Pain Worth the Gain?, This group detailed how even though children had jobs and could help feed their families and themselves, it came at a hard cost. Most children became disfigured and growth stunted from the back-breaking labor, which was really quite horrible.

The second group was called Prosperity at the Cost of the People. Such a project outlined what having slaves meant in the Industrial era. The want of cotton was going up rapidly and, as no American wanted to do it, farmers were forced to bring in workers to pick the cotton. The Northerners, although they were against it, fueled it by their need of cotton. Which is extremely ironic.

The third group was called Just Keep Spinning(which I thought was extremely clever). This group told of the simple spinning jenny and how it evolved into other advanced machinery. The spinning jenny lead to even to Textile Mill.

And the last group was called Making Money and Destroying Neighbor. This one so artfully showed how the Industrial Revolution had some bad parts to. Many people thought that the new machinery was taking a tole on the environment. And more and more people became depressed as they had to work more to accommodate the high prices because of the demand. It was quite a fun Exhibit!

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Revolutionary ideas in the Industrial Revolution

   The many ways the Industrial Revolution helped our generation could be counted in the thousands. But many of the ideas were seen as radical and too unrealistic in those times. As they came to be however, each idea was greeted with great enthusiasm. In class, each group of 3 or so people were given a topic to research and each topic had to do with how revolutionary something was. The two topics I found to be very revolutionary were PEOPLE and TRANSPORTATION.
    Transportation became more and more relevant in the Industrial Revolution with the invention of the steam engine, which was a simple way of making energy portable. Two things that the steam engine further revolutionized was the steam boat and the steam locomotive. These two made traveling long distances easier over a short amount of time. Steam boats allowed for more trade and more commerce between states and countries. But steam boats were hard to transfer goods on because all of the coal that was used to power it kept getting in the way. Eventually this was taken care of by a separate cargo space for both the goods and the coal. Steam locomotives were made fairly quickly after railroads were built to accommodate them. Like the steam engine they were more efficient modes of transportation and  trade. These machines made it easier to travel between states because you no longer had to walk, take a carriage or ride for three days to get anywhere. People blossomed and began to take and interest in the goods other towns produced and what inventions were being made.
    Many of the people living in this time were farmers because the only reliable source of income was farming. Almost all of the jobs in a town had to do with farming, so it is only natural the innovations started there. As the soil was devoid of nutrients, Roy Charles discovered that if the farmers planted turnips, the soil would retain some of it's nutrients. He urged them to do it. And Jethro Tull invented a new machine to plant seeds faster than the farmers. But the rise of the revolution also caused richer landowners to take over and enclose land that was shared before, which lead to the idea of enclosure. As the land diminished, farmers were forced to search for different jobs and different opportunities to feed their families. Soon factories were made and workers came to fill them. As the land and jobs increased, so did the money. Which lead to more food and less famine. Famine caused many of the people to have and early death, but now, people began to live longer and healthier lives. Even babies became stronger as their mothers were well fed and were able to have more nutrients. People rose out of the ashes, so to speak.


http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

Thursday, September 4, 2014

What The Internet Offers Us

   In History class, I participated in two activities to teach us how to use the internet. The first was a Google a Day. It consisted of the computer asking questions and us having to search the questions on Google. The second was going to an outrageous website and verifying if it was indeed authentic and accurate. These both of these were meant to teach us kids the responsibility we have when using the internet for school. 
    The a Google a Day was hard. The questions were very complicated. But I did find it entertaining to madly search through every available browser for the answers. I learned some surprising things. That Russel Brand gave Katy Perry a tiger for a present. That there was a 1950's show called 'The Howdy Doody show' .But one thing that was frustrating about it was that I couldn't figure out the clade for modern birds. It rejected every answer we put in.  In the end, it was an education on the ways of searching through Google.  
     The website we opened up was called Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. Although ridiculous, this was meant for us to learn how to test a website's Accuracy, Authenticity and reliability. All of which this website had none. We will need to know what qualifies as an acceptable source in future years and this was meant to show us. The website was a hoax about a fake tree octopus that steals dollars. It was created by Lyle Zapato. There are pictures, what we can do to help and even recipes. It couldn't be used as a source because we all know the creature specified in it is completely made up. So it was pretty obvious that it was unreliable. 



Http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/sighting.marcl2.jpg. 2006. N.p.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Me in a nutshell.

      My name is Kate McReynolds. I am in 10th grade and am currently in Honors History. This is my first post in a long line of those to come throughout the year. I have had a blog like this in the past and know how this works. But I will give this one some background too. I am doing this for my school, although I am very excited with the prospect of this fresh take on passing in assignments. All of my my posts will be about the fascinating history that has lead to this point in time. So without further adieu...Onward!!!!
   I have had many good teacher's in my time and all have had something to offer to my class. But to me, a good teacher is someone who is kind, understanding, funny, and takes in interest in me and my ideas about the topic we are learning.  Most of my good teachers have been in the subjects English or History. So those are the two places I will mostly highlight. My favorite History teacher was most likely Mr. Zilch in 6th grade at Parker middle school. He was so remarkable because he never yelled, was always smiling and he was very open to the prospect of new ideas. He gave a very loose vibe about the complexity of assignments and never scolded you when you got something wrong. I really liked him. My favorite English teacher was two years after in 9th grade, Mrs. Kaligerous. She really gave me a great gift...READING!!! Her room was full of books. Hundreds of them, all at my finger tips. She would let the student's borrow books and read them. It was then that I got my thirst for reading and stories. She, as a teacher, was good, smart and efficient. She liked me alot and I loved her. Some things you can do to be a better teacher with me is be very patience, explain the directions really well, don't yell and have something funny to say every once and a while.
    About the video we watched yesterday, I really agree with John Green. And not just because I love him. I really like the idea of being able to give back to a society that has invested in me. It makes me feel part of a community. My hopes for this year are as follows: I hope to get As in most of my classes. I hope to become a better person, writer and friend. And I hope to do what I can in the Drama club, Playwriting, and Book club. I will try to reach these goals by organizing myself and doing things one thing at a time. So that's my plan.



(This is a picture of my sister and my cat from my phone. I chose it because I really love both and each represent my family.)