Latin American Revolutions

            The Latin American Revolutions are important to think about because it goes hand in hand with many ideas of independence for each class that are still relevant today. The Latin American Revolutions also brought up the question, "Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative?"

Race as % of the Population in Latin America

This is the social rank of each group in Latin America social structure

            To go deeper into the essential question, the impact of race on the Latin American Revolutions for independence, we discussed the social ladder in the area. (Part of this was filling out the graph above) We learned that the social ladder has African Slaves on the bottom and Peninsulares on the top. In the middle there are the Indians, the Mulattoes, the Mestizos, and the Creoles. Then, we created a timeline of the Gran Columbia Revolution. Lastly, we compared the similarities and the differences with other groups who covered different revolutions.

Timeline of Key Events of the Gran Columbia Revolution

            My group covered the Gran Columbia Revolution. One commonality my group found in the jigsaw with the other two groups, who covered the revolutions in Brazil and Mexico, was that all of the revolutions ended with independence. Independence was the ultimate goal for all three of the revolutions. Secondly, all of the revolutions were guided by strong leaders. For the Gran Columbia Revolution they had Bolivar. Brazil had Pedro and King John VI. Finally, Mexico had Miguel Hidalgo. We also found some differences between the revolutions. The first difference was that Brazil resulted in an empire and Mexico ended in a republic. Our second difference was that the Portuguese monarchy came to Brazil to rule but Bolivar had dictatorial powers over Caracas. These revolutions all took separate ways to independence but race was always a constant issue in all three. In Gran Columbia Bolivar's main goal was to liberate New Granada from Spanish control. In Brazil Jose was killed at first because he didn't have an elite status. Also, Pedro tried to make Portuguese people the only people with power. Lastly, Miguel called for the end of the 300 years of racial equality.

            We think we have come a long way from these differences caused by race but in  reality almost nothing has actually changed. In today's society we are more judgmental than the revolutions were. They mainly judged based on race. We discriminate based on race, heritage, religion, physical features, personalities, style, etc. November 22, 2014 a Cleveland police officer shot a 12 year old African American boy. He died the next day. The boy was carrying an air-soft gun when the officer fired within two seconds of arriving on the scene. The agreement was that the officer didn't give the boy to explain himself before shooting him in the torso. He shot because he thought the young child was a threat based on the color of his skin. (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7275297/tamir-rice-police-shooting) Based on this story and many other instances similar to this one, I believe the issue of race in our lives is still important to consider. We can't go around making assumptions based on how someone looks because it could end with fatal results. We all deserve the same chances because when it all comes down to it, we are the same on the inside. Why should the outside determine the inside?

Andrew Jackson

            President Andrew Jackson held a certain reputation when he was in office. He was known as the people's president. During the presidency three major events occurred that made some people question if he really was the people's president. These three events were The Bank War, The Indian Removal, and The Spoils System. In class we split into six groups and every two groups were given one of these events. We were supposed to analyze the given documents and then create a presentation explaining the occurrence. Every presentation had to answer the essential question which was, is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?
            My group was assigned The Indian Removal. The Indian Removal was when Jackson forced Indians to leave their land. He wanted them to move West because he didn't want them to be squeezed out by white settlers and have the tribes be wiped out. (http://www.edline.net/files/_6YHDu_/53222985c1e5c5883745a49013852ec4/IndianRemoval1.jpg) The Indians didn't like this idea because they felt it was unjust to kick them out afetr everything they have done for the whites. (http://www.edline.net/files/_6YHFl_/a79ada70e840f8f33745a49013852ec4/IndianRemoval2.jpg) Down below is my group's slide show presentation explaining this devastating time for the Indians in greater detail.

  

          The Bank War and The Spoils System were covered by the other groups. The Bank War happened when Jackson thought that the banks had to much power. He wanted multiple smaller banks rather than one large bank. Many people didn't agree with him though. Daniel Webster was one of the people who disagreed. He felt that getting rid of the main bank would lead to economic collapse. Ironically, several years later there was an economic collapse. The collapse was caused by paper money having to regain its value without the help of the banks. The Spoils System was when the efficiency and the effectiveness of the government decreased. A spoils system is when a political party gives government jobs to voters and supporters after an election victory. It can also be called Rotation in Office. Basically, Jackson gave out jobs based on loyalty and not on skills. He believed that there was nothing wrong with change and just because a person has been doing their job for a long time doesn't mean that they deserve it over someone less experienced.

            Overall, I think that Andrew Jackson didn't deserve his long-standing reputation as the people's president. In The Indian Removal he forced the Indians to pick up their whole lives and move to unfamiliar land. In The Bank War he let the economy fail. In The Spoils System he ran a corrupt government and ended up dragging down the office as a whole. I feel like he had the right idea and wanted the rights between the poor and the rich to be balanced. He also wanted everyone to have a say but he just went about it in the wrong way. A classmate of mine commented on how he ruled and I couldn't agree more with it. She said, "He doesn't deserve to be the people's president because he was the people's president only to the people who liked him."

Rise of Democracy

            In class we read about the rise of democracy. There were six primary sources to help us familiarize ourselves with the topic. Before we started we split into smaller groups though. In the small groups we analyzed the sources to answer the essential question, "How do we define democracy? How democratic was the U.S. in the early 1800's?" To show that we could answer the questions each group put together a presentation. My group decided to make a poster demonstrating that we understood the material. 

Overview of the whole poster

Close up of The Dorr War Primary Source (with analysis)

Close up of the Data- Voting Chart 1 Primary Source (with analysis)

Close up of the Data- Voting Chart 2 Primary Source (with analysis) and the definition of democracy 

Close up of the Art- Country Election Painting Primary Source and the Art- County Election Painting Article Primary Source (with analysis) 

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

            There were many revolutions in 1830 and in 1848. These revolutions were known as the Decembrist Revolt, the 1830 revolution in France, the 1848 revolution in France, the Frankfurt Assembly, and the Hungary Revolution. Some of these revolutions can be seen as a failure or as a success. We were asked the question, "Were the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded? To answer this question we were divided into six groups and each group did one of the revolutions. We read the background documents and analyzed all of the primary sources to get a better understanding of our revolution. Once everyone finished we came together to share what we learned about our specific revolution. To make sure everyone knew the basics of each topic the groups made a SurveyMonkey for the class to take.

            My group was assigned the Frankfurt Assembly which took place in Germany, 1848-1849. The goal of the Frankfurt Assembly was to unite Germany under a constitution.This was a goal set by the liberals and the nationalists of Germany. Johann Gustav made a comment about Germany uniting and getting power at the Frankfurt Assembly. He said, "We need a powerful ruling house. Austria's power meant lack of power for us, whereas Prussia desired Germany unity in order to supply the deficiencies of her own power" (Primary Source #1: Johann Gustav: Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848). The conservative Prussian king, King Fredrick William IV opposed the idea. Originally, the king was offered German power but he ended up declining the offer. He declined the offer because it came from the people, who had no power, not the princes, who have most of the power. It was said that, "The King made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of allowing his god-given rule to be diminished by a piece of paper, namely a constitution" (Primary Source #3: Between Myself and My People... 1848). The King ended up sending in Prussian military forces to dissolve the assembly. The Frankfurt Assembly ended up with reformers clashing with military forces, causing hundreds to be killed and sent to jail. Meanwhile many Germans fled their homeland to go to America. My group's SurveyMonkey can be found at:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T76BN7C. Down below are some screenshots from the SurveyMonkey for examples of some of the questions were on each questionnaire.

            We found that the majority of the class could answer these basic questions just from reading the Background Essay and the Primary Sources for the Frankfurt Assembly.

            A big part of the lesson was to decide if the revolution was success or a failure. That is also what the essential question was all about. I think most of the revolutions were either leaning towards being a failure or had a neutral impact. of  were more of a success instead of a failure. For example, the Frankfurt Assembly was more of a failure than a success because it ended in war and the deaths of many German citizens. Also, people had to flee their homeland in order to survive the attacks from the Prussian military. An example of a revolution with a neutral impact would be the French Revolution of 1848. The revolution left the middle class both feared and distrusted, while the working class nursed a deep hatred for the bourgeoisie. This happened because prior to this there was an attack on rioting workers and 1,500 people were killed before the government crushed the rebellion. The only revolution that I think was a complete and utter failure would be the Decembrist Revolt. The Decembrist Revolt ended in the ruler opening fire on his people who were protesting in the streets. Almost everyone in the crowd was killed and the people who survived didn't benefit in any way. Instead they were simply thrown into jail. This is my opinion on the essential question, "Were the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?"  

Toussaint Louverture: DBQ

President Abraham Lincoln and President George Washington, both can be described as great leaders. President Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, can be described as honest, caring, and an all around people-person. President George Washington, the first president of the United States, can be described as commanding, authoritative, and fierce. These two men come across as opposites when described this way but they both possess the skills that are necessary to be a successful leader because they can combine compassion and maturity. Toussaint Louverture is another leader that found this key balance and victoriously led the black population of Saint Domingue to freedom. Louverture started as a slave himself but slowly climbed the social ladder to become a an important figure on the island. Toussaint Louverture is known as a strong military commander and the ruler of Saint Domingue but he is most importantly known as a liberator of slaves because every decision he made was to help free the slaves of the island.

Toussaint Louverture most significantly served as a liberator of slaves, never forgetting the ultimate goal of freeing them from slavery. When the slave revolt began in the north of Saint Domingue Louverture joined the revolution as a doctor towards the troops and commands a small detachment of slave soldiers (Document A). Once the revolutionary government in France, under Robespierre’s rule, abolishes slavery in France and all its colonies Louverture was quick to to stop his troop’s revolt to support the French (Document A). When news of the British being nervous of abolition spreading to their colony of Jamaica reaches Saint Domingue Toussaint Louverture, General Dessalines, and General Christophe create and army to attack the British (Document A). All of these decisions and actions committed by Louverture were to stop the spread of slavery. Never one was there an example of him fighting to keep slavery alive on the island. As a liberator of slaves Louverture willingly addressed the French Directory to maintain freedom for all slaves. In a letter he states, “Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look on calmly while it is taken from them!” (Letter to the French Directory). The answer was no as Louverture also went on to say, “We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it” (Letter to the French Directory). Louverture is making the conclusion to fight to the death in order not to lose the newly found freedom. As a liberator of slaves Toussaint Louverture was able to fulfill all of the goals he set for himself and for the island of Saint Domingue that will stay intact through the rest of the island’s history.

As a military commander Louverture made great steps to protect the island from the reinstatement of slavery. In 1801 Louverture showed great humanity, generosity, and courage as he led his troops to defeat Napoleon’s army  in the city of Semana. As the French were coming to the island Louverture gave the order to burn and abandon the city. French soldiers were greeted with, “nothing but smouldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities” (A Description of Toussaint Louverture). This prevented the newly arrived army from taking over Semana. Since Louverture was smart enough to train his men in not only shoulder to shoulder fighting but in guerrilla warfare as well. Since there was no city to fight in they were forced to fight in the mountains, “where the blacks have always proved too much for the whites” (A Description of Toussaint Louverture. Napoleon’s troops only know shoulder to shoulder fighting and were defeated by Louverture’s troops who were accustomed to both fighting styles. Toussaint Louverture was able to prevent the French from taking over the city of Semana and bringing slavery back to the island and proved his importance as a military commander.

Toussaint Louverture also served as the ruler of Saint Domingue. Under the title of ruler, Louverture made the promise to make sure slavery never exists on the island. This is the role that is filled loosely because of the new acts that Louverture passes. For example, Louverture passes Article 15 which applies that, “Each plantation… shall represent the quiet haven of an active and constant family, of which the owner of the land… shall be the father” (The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801). The article means that slaves will go back to doing the same work under the same people who previously owned them. The only difference is that this time they will be payed for their work. This idea was not popular because it runs on the same idea that slavery ran on. The Proclamation of November 25, 1801, created by Toussaint Louverture, states that, “Vagabond cultivators arrested… shall be taken to the commander of the quarter, who will have them sent to the gendarmerie [local police] on their plantation” (Proclamation, 25 November 1801).  In other words, workers can’t leave their plantations and if they do they will be brought back by their plantation’s local police. This made people feel trapped and they feel the way they did when slavery was still being practiced. Toussaint Louverture kept his promise of abolishing slavery but he cost the peoples’ trust and happiness to do so.

A liberator of slaves, a military commander, and the ruler of Saint Domingue is what Toussaint Louverture will be remembered as. His legacy of fighting for everyone to be treated as equals no matter skin color will be apart of him forever. Despite Louverture’s contributions as a military commander and as the ruler of Saint Domingue, he will be remembered as a liberator of slaves before the other two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toussaint_Louverture

Document A: Created from various sources.
Document B: Toussaint Louverture, "Letter to the French Directory, November 1797."
Document C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.
Document D: Toussaint Louverture, "Proclamation, 25 November 1801."
Document E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007.
Document F: William Wells Brown, "A Description of Toussaint Louverture," from The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1683. Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.

Congress of Vienna

            What should people on power do when their power is threatened? To understand and answer this question we all picked a partner to do a quick note taking activity. We each had set questions about a certain document that we needed to find the answers for. For example, a question would have been, who was the representative that Great Britain sent over to speak on their behalf? It helped us get a better background knowledge on what happened during that time period. Then, we sat in our regular seats and were given three problems and three solutions to those problems. We had to select the option that Metternich would have chosen from his conservative viewpoint.
            Once we were done with the second activity we had accumulated four main ways that Metternich and the other powerful people at the Congress of Vienna eliminated threats to their power. The four main ways were a Balance of Power,  the Principle of Legitimacy,  the Holy Alliance, and the Principle of Intervention. The Principle of Intervention was an ideology that gave the great powers the right to send troops into a country to stop revolution and restore monarchs, England refused to take part in the Principle of Intervention. For example, in the 1820's Italians starting an uprise because they wanted one strong country, not separate states. Using the Principle of Intervention Austria was able to crush the uprising before it got out of hand. Another example of the Principle of Intervention helping powerful people stay in power was, again, in the 1820's when there was a meeting to decide what to do about revolutions in the Spanish colonies and against the Spanish King. Louis the XVII sent an army to crush the uprising in Spain. Not only did these four concepts have an impact but the Congress of Vienna did as well. The Congress of Vienna put an end to wars between the five major powers of Europe for 40 years (up to 1853). However, there were numerous revolutions that could not be contained including the Revolutions of 1848 in which Metternich lost power and was forced to flee Vienna.

A Congress of Vienna meeting

http://www.emersonkent.com/historic_documents/congress_of_vienna_1815.htm

            In the end, I personally think that the Congress of Vienna overall made the right decisions. The new territories seemed to please everyone as a whole because fighting for land came to a halt. This also resulted in a Balance of Power. The new ruler, Louis XVII,  made Frenchmen equal despite their titles or ranks which is a positive. This resulted in the Principle of Legitimacy. Finally, the Holy Alliance and the Principle of Intervention helped cease major fighting for 40 years. But I do think the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power under certain circumstances. This would create a solid balance between the government and the people. 

Our Sovereign... Napoleon?

            Napoleon, a military genius, responsible for the conquering of Italy, Venice, Egypt, Austria/ Vienna, Berlin, Spain, Portugal, Moscow, Belgium, Prussia, Rhineland, and Holland. After the monarchy failed he was the one who stepped up and seized power over France. We know that Napoleon had a major impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe but they can be seen as either positive or negative. This developed our class's essential question, what was Napoleon's impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe?

Napoleon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

            According to Madame de Stael, a wealthy women who gained her power through the monarchy, disliked Napoleon greatly. She thought, for the social systems, that Napoleon, "would like to persuade men by force and by cunning", and that he would, "encroach[intrude] daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence." In other words Madame de Stael thought Napoleon brought an unethical approach to human interactions and would be nothing but a burden for France. For the economic situation she was again at a loss. Napoleon replaced the old monarchy completely and everyone that had ties to the monarchy lost their social status as well as they wealth. Madame de Stael was one of those people. Finally, she believed that Napoleon's main goal was to conquer all of Europe. Also, she thought that Napoleon was striving towards a "universal monarchy" with him as king. She would be against this because she would never get her old wealth back. 

            However, Marshal Michel Ney, an officer who served with Napoleon, had different views on Napoleon's overall impact. He was completely for Napoleon because he gained military and political power with him as ruler. His main statement for the social impact that Napoleon had is, "Whether the Bourbon nobility choose to return to exile or consent to live among us, what does it matter to us? The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights." He is trying to say that whether the public like it or not the social standards have changed under Napoleon's power and there is no changing it. Instead of rebelling against it they should just go with and support it. Unlike Madame de Stael, Marshal Michel Ney like the new economic ways because he was an officer of war. In result of this he gained a new sense of authority, influence, and of course wealth. "Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august[respected; impressive] emperor, comes to confirm it." He like how Napoleon is running France's government and invites others to join in supporting the "immortal legion" that is Napoleon.

            The last source is called "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Histories": http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html. The document is a collection on different historians' views on Napoleon. The overall impact that Napoleon had on the three systems was mixed. A comment made of his social impact was made by J.T.(Joel Tyler) Headley, writer of historical and biographical works. He described Napoleon's social interactions as, "Napoleon's moral character was indifferent enough; yet as a friend of human liberty, and eager to promote the advancement of the race, by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns who endeavored to crush him." But Andrews described him as inconsistent and untrustworthy. A strong opinion on his political impact came from George Bancroft who said, "the Directory needed a man, they found him in the expert artillerist; France needed a man, she found him in the conquerer of Italy."

Luddites: Taking Sides

          Luddites were a group of people that were against the misuse of technology. A common misconception is that Luddites were against technology all together and they weren't. They just didn't agree on how it was being used. To show their distaste the Luddites would break into factories after the closed for the day and destroyed the machines. In one case they even burnt a factory down. Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans and when the factories were built they were the ones who lost their jobs. They didn't agree how the new technology was being used and wanted to do something. That is why they protested and did what they did.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist=

Luddites destroying the factory's machines in a form of protest. 

            What you will read next is a mock primary source letter to go deeper into the Luddite movement.

Dear my cousin Annabel,

            How is it in America? Are you liking it? I miss you more and more every day. On the bright side I got a new job! I am officially working for a textile factory here in Britain. It's hard work but I like it. Well at first I liked it. There has recently been a few problems with a group of strange men who dress like women and follow an imaginary leader. I think they call him King Ludd. The group is called Luddites and I hope someone stops them rather soon. They come into the factories after everyone has left and break our machines. When we come back we have to repair them and it reduces our pay since we are paid on what we make and we can't make anything with broken machines. These Luddites have also sent threatening letter to some of my friends that I work with. I have heard that in some places they attacked the employers, magistrates, and the food merchants. This has caused fights to break out between Luddites and government soldiers. I just want them to stop so I continue to make a decent pay to send to my father's farm. Industrialization hasn't just been hard on the Luddites. I have had my share of misfortunes. For example, I am being forced to work in the factory so my father doesn't lose his job. The factories aren't the best places to work either. They are extremely dangerous and we tend to work in the harmful dust the machines produce. Also, industrialization created some country economic problems. The Napoleonic War, which lasted from 1802 to 1812. It disrupted trade between countries or so I have been told. I understand why the Luddites are acting out though. They are simply protesting against changes that they think will worsen their lives. Factories take away their control over prices, how much work they had to do, the cost of materials, and how much profit they will make. Sadly, they are directly affecting my way of getting money so I feel no sympathy towards them. I don't know what to do Annabel. Writing this letter was all I could think of. Perhaps I will let the government officials and soldiers handle this situation. Besides the Luddites can't stay forever. Best wishes to you and to your family.

Your cousin, 

Esther 

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

            To learn about the three types of government capitalism, socialism, and communism we did an in class activity involving chocolate. In the first round each person in the class got three pieces of chocolate. Everyone but two, those to people got eight pieces of candy. Then, everyone got up and played rock, paper, scissors shoot. If you won you got one piece of chocolate from the loser of the match. If you ran out of candy to play with you had to sit down. At the end there was a lot of people with none and only a select few with more. The ones who had candy left were considered the bourgeoisie and the ones who lost were considered the proletariat. This demonstrated socialism. Next, we did a round two. The teacher took all the candy back and everyone started with three pieces. This demonstrated communism. We were then given the choice whether or not we wanted to participate in rock, paper, scissors shoot. Most people stayed seated not wanting to lose their chocolate again. The rest played with the same rules as the last round. The game was fun until you lost all of your candy and had to stop playing and watch others win. It was also frustrating at the end to have nothing and had to see the people next to you with a lot. This was also how tit was in real life. The poor would envy the rich because they got to live comfortably while the poor had to struggle to get by day to day.
            Two people wanted to help the poor but they thought of going about in two different ways. These two people were Marx and Smith. Marx's idea was communism. The ultimate goal for communism is to have a classless society. No government is needed with Marx's ways. While dealing with communism in our class activity we refused to play the game and agreed to share the candy equality. The teacher was no longer needed to supervise the candy distribution. A similar thing would happen in real life as well. The wealth would be spread equally and nobody would be higher or lower than one another on the social ladder. The poor benefited from this because they finally have enough money to live more easily. The rich opposed it because they wouldn't be rich anymore. People who inherited their money would have to start working for money but the people who worked hard for their money might also be unhappy because all their hard worked went to waste. To learn about Marx's background we watched a video in the beginning, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IMc5mhbZk&feature=youtu.be. Smith came up with a theory called the Invisible Hand. The Invisible Hand gave the people the option to control their own prices and have complete control over their own business. This theory was well liked among the rich because they didn't have to give up any of their money. It also helped the poor. This system offered free trade where the poor could purchase better quality goods for a cheaper price. Smith wasn't worried about the rich. His main goal was to give the poor more options with what to do with their money. For more information on the Invisible Hand go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE&feature=youtu.be.
            I think both strategies will help improve the poor's living conditions. Even though they are different they both work towards the same goal. They both want to help the poor. Although, there is an alternate solution. This solution is called capitalism. Capitalism supported the idea that some people were rich, some people were poor, and the government has control. I think capitalism is the best choice because it creates a balance between rich, poor, and government. In the end there is no way to make everything 100% fair for everyone. Someone will always have more than other people. Whether it is money or food. This was the main problem and capitalism address it with a solution.

The Three Ideologies

            What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action? This was the essential question we were asked at the beginning of class. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals especially ones that form the basics of economic or political theory and policy. They are the ideas and manner of thinking characteristics of a group, class, or individual. Also, there are three main ideologies which are liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. To learn about these ideologies the class was divided into six groups and every two groups were assigned either liberalism, conservatism, or nationalism. We were then asked to create a sixty-second project explaining what our ideology is and how it impacted the social and political systems. To get the information we read a brief article going over the history of each one. The point was to create a better project than the other group that had the same ideology. My group was assigned liberalism and we decided to make a common craft.
            In our common craft we explained how liberalism promoted individual liberty and supported innovation and reform. Liberalism opposed the monarchy. People who supported liberalism believed in god given natural rights and laws and no one could tell one another what rights they had based on their social status. The middle class supported liberalism a little more than the upper class because it gave power to the middle class and took power from the upper class. They thought everyone had the right to better themselves and contribute to society in their own ways.

It impacted the social system because it introduced a new system call meritocracy. Meritocracy gives everyone the chance to change their social class if they chose to. Those who did were rewarded based on merits. This gave people the option to have a say in what the government does and how it is run.

Liberalism impacted the political action by developing the system of the invisible hand. The invisible hand was a new economic law. It guided human behavior in society.

            The other two ideologies are conservatism and nationalism. Conservatism is the opposite of liberalism. Conservatism like the monarchy and wanted to keep the church in power by adapting old ideas into the new government. It opposed meritocracy because of their fondness for the monarchy. Conservatism is very traditional and doesn't like the idea of change or innovation. Their biggest fear is that there will be a revolution and chaos if the systems are changed. Then there is nationalism. Nationalism and liberalism are connected through their positive outlooks on new social and political actions. Its main purpose was to bring nations together by their shared language, custom, and history. They think that if they unite under one government it will aid them in the protection from foreign forces. For example, Napoleon was able to invade and conquer Italy and Germany fairly easily and it is because Italy and Germany weren't working together to ward off Napoleon and his troops. Maybe if they were united through conservatism Napoleon wouldn't have took over so quickly or maybe wouldn't have been able to take over at all.

         

MOSI Google Hangout

           In class we had the opportunity to do a Google Hangout with a historian from the Manchester Textile Museum, Jamie. To prepare for the live chat we visited the MOSI website; http://www.mosi.org.uk/explore-mosi/explore-galleries/textiles-gallery.aspx. We explored the site trying to get a sense of what it is about. The Downloads tab helped in this investigation. We also watched a video that starred Jamie. In the video he took raw cotton and showed us how the machines were used to produced thread. He also explained some key terms like Hopper Feeder Scutcher, Carding Engine, Draw Frame, Sliver, Speed Frames, Slubbing, Roving, and Power Loom. To understand these terms we searched them through Google using key words. For example, I learned that a Sliver is a delicate piece of brushed cotton. As a final form of preparation we came up with questions to ask Jamie. We had four categories which were Textile Process, Evolution of Textile Technology, Positive and Negative Impacts, and Being a Real Life Historian and Curator.

           During the chat lots of interesting facts came up about the textile machines. First, I learned that the machines weren't good for the workers health. Yes, the machines killed people suddenly but they also killed people over a longer period of time. The machines produced a lot of dust, dirt, and debris from the cotton. It got in the food and was inhaled by the people working the machines. It was dangerous to inhale the dust and caused health problems such as illness and even death. Also, when we watched the video Jamie was in the machines were extremely loud. This was a surprise because I didn't think of how loud they would be. It was also a shock to listen to how unsafe the machines were. Workers were dragged in the machine by their clothes or hair and mangled. The machines also lifted workers by their clothes or hair and killed them that way. Also, it was common to break and even lose fingers from the machines. I always pictured the machines being a little safer since they were used so frequently. Also, I didn't know that children were used in the actual textile making process. I thought they  cleaned the machines while trying not to get caught in the machines. Children would often brush the fibers to face the same direction and started doing this as young as five years old. Another fact I learned about the process was that the women made the thread for the cloth while the men were in charge of spinning. I knew women worked in the factories because of the Lowell Mills but I thought men were used to oversee the women's production but men were also used as employees in the mills.

Jamie explaining and demonstrating how women would get the thread on a bobbin and how they would be used in the spinning machines.

           I liked the Google Hangout because it was both a listening and seeing experience. Also, having an expert on the topic so accessible made understanding the topic's situation easier. Jamie was able to go more in depth into the history while showing demonstrations in ways that made sense. I felt like I got to see the Industrial Revolution from a different perspective. A more personal perspective. If given the opportunity I would like to do other live chats with other experts about future topics.

British Factories vs. American Factories

           During the Industrial Revolution factories were a main working place. There were factories in both America and in England. Even though these factories were built for the same reason it doesn't mean they were run the same way. In America the factories were seen in a positive way in the beginning. The mill girls were given independence when in Lowell working at the mills. When they weren't working they were allowed to explore the town. For example, some girls went to see plays. They were promised protection and nice living quarters in the form of boarding houses. It was mandatory that the girls were given an education so for a couple months out of the year they left work to go to school. The most ideal thing about the American factories was that the job was temporary. Once they were of age to marry they could leave to start a family. As you can see in the beginning the working conditions were great. They were like this because America didn't have such a high work demand or a high demand for an abundance of cheap labor forces. This lead to less factory accidents and an overall safe working environment. Sadly, work conditions couldn't stay like this. During down turns in the demand for the factories products they were wage cuts. The workers went on strike as a form of protest. 800 women protested but in the end new workers were brought in to replace whoever refused to work. This happened again two years later where the protesters had more success in bringing entire mills to a stop.

An American Factory

http://keepingmeinstitchestqp.blogspot.com/2014/02/made-in-america.html

           British factories were extremely different compared to the American factories. They were much higher demands for cheap labor which resulted in lots of children working. The children were in charge of cleaning the machines. This was a dangerous job since the children had to clean the machines while they were still in use. This resulted in broken bones(mostly fingers) and even death from being crushed. Going off of this the factories were not safe for the workers. Since they were an abundance of workers replacing lost ones wasn't a big deal. Most accidents happened in the morning and involved children. The most common accidents  were clothes or hair being caught in the machine, broken fingers, and the workers being lifted up by the machines to be mangled. Accidents could also lead to a slow, painful death. Because of these accidents physical deformities were common as well. Some included deteriorating bone marrow, femur and pelvis breaks, and missing limbs. In American factories the workers are given time off to eat their meals. British factories didn't give their employees a break to eat. There was no time for breakfast, no time for dinner, and no time for sitting.

Deformed British Factory Workers

http://spartacus-educational.com/IRdeformities.htm

           In my opinion the British factory workers had it tougher than the American factory workers. I feel this way because the work conditions were always poor and lacking for the British. They never went through a good phase and a bad phase like the Lowell Mills. It was like one long, bad phase that couldn't be broken. Also, they were more factory accidents and deaths because of the ability to replace workers quickly and the high labor demand. 

Museum Curator

My Group's Exhibit

"More Cotton, More Slaves, Less Freedom"

            To create our own museum exhibit we had to follow the steps a museum curator would follow to create their exhibit. The process a curator goes through is a precise process. A curator must know about their topic and be able to display the information in a way that is easily understood to the people viewing their work. I realized how hard displaying the information was because what made sense to you might not have made sense to anyone else. This will cause you to have to start over with an all new layout idea until you get it just right. Also, I noticed the layout of the exhibits were similar. The starting point was in the top right hand corner and it ended in the bottom left hand corner. Walking around and seeing all the other exhibits I learned some new, interesting facts about the Industrial Revolution. First, to get the word out about the steam engine Robert Fulton had to write about the engine to the editor of the American Citizen to share his positive experiences on the steam  boat. Second, I found it shocking and disturbing to find out that the children had to wear leather belts around their waists with a chain attached so they could pull the mine carts like animals not like human beings.

Online Takeover

           The internet is a place filled with so much information. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if you can trust one source compared to another. To help with this task we did some activities to learn how to properly search for information on a certain topic.
            The first activity we did was A Google A Day. A Google A Day is a website you can go to that is run by Google. It gives you a set of three specific questions. You have to find the answers to their questions by only using the search tools they give you. (To try it out for yourself go to http://www.agoogleaday.com/#game=started) At first it was frustrating because so many different websites popped up showing different variations of the answer. As the activity went on it became easier to find the answer though. It became easier because you learn how to search for the key terms in the question. Knowing how to search for the key terms helps narrow down what comes up. What I learned from A Google A Day was how to read a question and pick out the vital information. At first when I read a question I search the whole question. Now I know what to search to get answers quicker.
            When looking up information there are three terms you should keep in mind. The terms are accuracy, authenticity, and reliability. First, accuracy, to me, means that the information being provided is correct and up to date. You can check if it is correct by going to different websites and seeing if the facts match up to one another. It is important if it is up to date because things change all of the time so the facts change. You don't want to write about something that isn't relevant to your topic anymore. Second, authenticity means that the facts are historically correct, nothing is made up. You can check it in the same way described in accuracy. Go to different sources and see if the information matches up. Finally, reliability is being able to trust the source and the author who wrote it. If you aren't sure if the source is right you can look up the author and see if he is a professional in the topic. Some people will take up a topic as a hobby and publish incorrect or out of date facts that are no good. If you can't trust the person who wrote it there is a good chance you can't trust the information as well.
            The website http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ is about a rare, endangered species called the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. The website seems real because the creator included pictures and videos of the octopus. (The pictures and videos can be found here: http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/sightings.html)

http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/sightings.html

However the website is fraud and there is no such thing as the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. This isn't a website you would want to use for school. You can find out that the website isn't reliable is by searching the species of octopus and see what else comes up. You won't find anything but this website and others talking about how it is a hoax. Also, the author is Lyle Zapato. If You search Lyle Zapato you will find how he is a publisher not a animal researcher. It could be a hobby but it isn't what he is qualified in. If he is fake there is a great chance the website is fake as well.

A Revolutionary Revolution

      The Industrial Revolution brought many new aspects to everyday life. The revolution opened windows to trading, mass production, formal schooling, the improvement in weapons and medicine, etc.  In class we had a question to answer. The question was, "What was 'revolutionary' about industrialization?" To answer that question we learned about four different enhancements that were created during the revolution. They were people, technology, resources, and transportation.
      People played a big part in the Industrial Revolution. People improved farming during the revolution. The Dutch built earthen walls called dikes to reclaim land from the sea. This technique became important because it made more room in the fields for more crops to grow. The more room you have the more food you can produce at one time. Along with farming, people also developed ways that made farming less labor intense. The improvements made in farming helped decline the death rates. Agricultural advances reduced the risk of famine and better hygiene and better medical care came with. Since people were generaly more healthy due to these achievements women were able to produce healthier and stronger offspring to help in the future. People were one of the major aspects of the Industrial Revolution because they were able to produce techniques that kept them strong during this time period. 

                        

                      http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/history

      One of the other huge factors in the Industrial Revolution was the advances made in transportation. The new transportation system enabled better shipping, could send more goods to different places, allowed more people to have access to goods, and provided more jobs. All this was made possible by the invention of the Steam Locomotive. The Steam Locomotive powered the trains that pulled carriages filled with goods to their destinations. It also made it easier for factory owners to supply people from far away with their goods. Along with the Steam Locomotive was the Steam Boat. The Steam Boat enabled faster shipping and could carry a larger amount than the ship. Transportation was so revolutionary because it changed the way people thought about receiving and sending goods. The people in the communities didn't have to just rely on each other to get the wanted supplies. They could now branch off to other communities to get the desired goods. 

http://youtu.be/zhL5DCizj5c

       

Good Teacher to Great Teacher

      Hi! My name is Sabrina Caruso and this is my Honors History Blog. This blog will be used to showcase what I am doing in class throughout the year.
      There are many qualities that a good teacher and a great teacher share. For example, a good teacher can be interesting. While the great teacher takes it a step further and is interesting but is also engaging. Having the ability to create interesting lesson plans is good but being able to engage the students in the lesson is great. Being engaging will help the class not let their minds wonder off. An engaging teacher to me is a teacher that has the ability to hold a class's attention for a good portion of a lesson. I think being engaging is an important quality because in my past experience I will pay attention if I find something interesting but I will remember it long term if not only the topic was interesting but the teacher was also making it interesting by being engaging. The second important quality a great teacher can posses is fairness. If you are a generally fair teacher it just makes it easier to get along. Along with getting along, if you show fairness the class as whole will respect you. I know that if I like a teacher I am much more likely to try harder in the class. It sounds weird but if I think the teacher is unfair I'll just zone out. It may be different for other people but that is me personally. An example of not being fair is telling someone that they can't have their water bottle out but then letting another person keep theirs out. Engagement and fairness are two of the main qualities I think a great teacher has. On a more personal level, one thing you can do to support me this year is to be patient with me. It might take me awhile to get something and I don't want you to get frustrated. Some things I will get really quick but other things like getting used to doing everything electronically might take some time.

Electronic Classroom 

http://www.edudemic.com/comic-will-texting-replace-raising-your-hand-in-class/

      In a video John Green stated that he pays school taxes because he wants the kids to be educated when they grow up so they invent things to make his life easier. He believes that it is our duty to take our education and use it to give back to our community and I agree with him. We spend up to twelve years in school learning. Why would we not apply what we learned into something more useful? We have the chance to help others who possibly didn't have the chance to receive an education like we did. I think it is selfish to throw everything we did in school away when someone would do anything for the information we learned. This year I hope i can start to apply what I learn to the real world. Everyday we learn skills we need for the real world but it is up to us to apply them. I plan on doing this simply paying closer attention to my surroundings and thinking, "What did I learn today that can make that situation better?" 

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