Contemporary Novel: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is about a boy named Tom who is a trouble maker. He lives with his Aunt in Missouri along the Mississippi River. He tricks his friends into painting a fence that was given to him as a punishment. Tom is good at getting people to do stuff for him and getting out of trouble. Tom is a typical boy of the time. He goes to school then does chores then swims or fishes. He is what you expect to see on an old movie or what you expect your grandfather was like when he was a kid. This would be the American dream for a kid in that time. When you think of American boy you always think of an earlier time. You don't picture a boy with a cellphone in his hand, but holding a fishing pole walking down to the shore. Tom Sawyer goes through the novel going through many adventures and every adventure pertains to the one aspect of the American dream.

Americans today are always looking for the easy way out. We always want everything to be easier and less time consuming. Tom Sawyer does this by getting other people to do his work. Instead of painting the fence and learning a lesson he decides to trick his Friends into painting it for him.
Tom Sawyer is may be a mischievous boy but he goes to school, does his chores and goes to church. He may not be the idea of an adult quintessential American but he is what i think of went think of the quintessential American boy.

Virtue Log

I have chosen the virtue industry. I have chosen this virtue because I tend to waste my time a lot. Either by watching tv too much or just staring off into space. Ben Franklin's explanation is short and sweet which would be the definition of industry there is no need to waste time over defining it. My plan for the week is to try and not waste time and do things that are productive.

Monday- Got up at one o'clock just because I could. Not a good use of my time. The time sleeping could have been used to read or possibly just going outside and doing something. Watched way too much tv today. Again a total waste of time. Other than that a pretty boring day.

Tuesday- Pretty much the same as yesterday. Too much sleep and just not a lot of time spent on getting things accomplished.

Wednesday- Today was much better. Went to work which was at seven. Got home at 12 and read a bit. Also helped my mother in the garden.

Thursday- Another day like Monday except I worked outside with my father working around the house.

Friday- A lot accomplished today. Went to work, finished reading a book, cleaned my room, and after all that helped my parents work around the house for a while.

Touching Spirit Bear Topic

My Topic to research is the Spirit Bear. In this book the Spirit Bear is what makes Cole actually look back on his life and change. Before the bear attacked him, he was arrogant and he was obnoxious. He actually thought he could fight the bear. He realizes that he is vulnerable and he comes to terms with what is around him. The bear is also what makes Peter trust Cole.
The Spirit bear in this story goes by more than one name. Some people might call it the ghost bear but it actually is called a Kermode Bear. What makes it a spirit bear is it's white coat. Not all Kermode bears have white colored fur. Only a small percentage do. It is a recessive trait in their genes.
Tsimshiam legend says that once the world was covered in ice and snow. But a raven came down and turned everything green. After he had done that he turned some bears white to remember that the world once was covered in snow. The raven was the creator of life.

Mini Report: Circle Justice

I am going to do my mini report on Circle Justice. I do not know anything about it so it is a good topic for me to research. I found an article that explained it well. In the book Cole is sentenced under the concept of Circle Justice. Circle Justice is used to heal rather than to punish repeat offenders. First the members of the Circle explain and find out what the crime impacts the rest of the "village" . Then all members of the circle decide what the sentence should be. The members of the circle could be judges or prosecutors or even towns people. This is used so that instead of punishing someone you are healing them. If you punish a repeat offender then they are just going to do something worse. This is a big theme in the book. Justice should heal not punish. In the article I read they were talking about how Minneapolis was first to offer circle justice and that is where this book takes place.

http://freenet.msp.mn.us/~fholson/circles-mn/circ-stb.htm

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

Honors History Final Essay

The American Revolution did not truly end until John Adams took office as the second President of the United States of America. While that work was undertaken by all colonists (in one way or another), the articulation and structuring of resentment against the British Empire, and the construction of a new nation afterwards, was largely completed by a relatively small number of men.

We will study the time period leading up to the American Revolution, the War for Independence itself, and the immediate aftermath. Again, while these events reflect wide participation by many colonials, their direction and ultimate resolution result largely from the fact that a group of individuals balanced personal ambition, ideology, regional materialism, and personality quirks in such a way as to achieve consensus as to how a government should be formed. In consideration of all the facts, what was required of leadership to guide the colonies through a revolution, war, and into a working constitution of laws? Certainly, significant events will provide some of the details to support your thesis, but primary emphasis should be given to the information and insights derived from Joseph Ellis’ Founding Brothers. Consider how men of such intense intelligence, bias, contradiction, and ego were able to collaborate.

Abstract:

This piece will answer many questions about the American Revolution. I will focus primarily on the question, what was required of leadership to guide the colonies through a revolution, war, and into a working constitution of laws? I will use many different sources in order to answers these vital questions. I will use Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis and Classroom discussions. I will also use a slew of other Internet websites to gain evidence of my thoughts. Among these websites are http://library.thinkquest.org/,

The American Revolution was not a subtle one. It was a long time coming in the eyes of not only the colonists but also the British. The British were more ignorant at the time because they are what you would call "British". Britain during this time focused on money and power. Having been wealthy and ruling much of the known world, Britain only wanted more. They started to put more and more taxes on the American colonists. The colonists knew that there would be taxes because Britain needed money to protect the colonists. What the colonists did not know was at what extent would Britain increase their taxes. The actual war might not have started until the battle of Lexington and Concord on April 18, 1775, but the Revolution was burning inside the hearts of the true patriots. One of these patriots was quoted as saying, "Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people . . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." This was said by John Adams. The colonists wanted change and that is what they would get. The colonists were fighting for so much more than the British. They were fighting for their homes and their own country. This is where they have brought up their children. They have their pride and dignity to worry about. They also did not have a reputation as of now so they were not as narcissistic as the British. The British wee only fighting for land thousands of mile away from them. Since they were Britain they had a pretty high self esteem of themselves. This was bad in this particular war.

The whole Revolution took a lot of people doing many significant things in order for the revolution to start. Even the little guys such as Samuel Adams had a lot to do with it. Him and other people like him spread the word of the Revolution and got people riled up. Without people like him the war would not have been accepted by as many people. What would life be like if the congress never voted to go to war because some people like Sam Adams did not get people fired up. The revolution also could not have been accomplished without the leaders of the revolution. Without Adams or Jefferson the war might have not been a success. This goes to show you that with one piece of the puzzle is missing, then the whole system does not work.

The word leader can have a lot of different meaning and connotations. A leader could only be a leader in a simple high school group or it could be one of the most influential leaders we will have in the history of the United States. During the time of the American Revolution it was a pivotal moment in our country's history. Without strong leaders to serve as the backbone of our country there would not have been a U.S.A, it might have been called the Unites States of Britain. It took the true meaning of the word leader to push our country through this time of peril and uncertainty. Many people come to mind if you talk about the leaders of the American Revolution. A few stand out among the rest. These special group of leaders did the most to shape our American way of life. There might have been these leaders but without the secondary leaders there might have not been such a success. The first leader was none other than George Washington. Whenever someone needed a military commander they turned to George Washington himself. Washington was in the general in charge of the whole continental army during the Lexington and Concord battles. George Washington's famous picture of him crossing the Delaware shows how commanding he was and how he had that attitude and characteristics of a born leader. Washington is such a great leader because he follows this quote by Aristotle, "He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander". He has shown this trait many times. When he was under the command of General Braddock. He was a great soldier. Even if one man does not take all of the actions people and soldiers will follow by example. To go back to the original question. Much was expected from George Washington. He had many responsibilities as a man of such rank. Not only did the country ask him to be a General in the Army but later they asked him to lead the country becoming the first U.S. president. Joseph Ellis puts it perfect as how important George Washington was to the colonists. This quote comes from the chapter "Generation". "but far from least, an early unanimous consensus that the first chief executive would be George Washington, only one man, to be sure but an incalculable asset." This just goes to show you that even if you are one man you can do anything if you have the motivation that Washington most likely had. George Washington had the right amount of motivation and confidence. He had enough confidence but had self control. That was indeed the downfall of Britain in the revolutionary war. They were to conceded and thought that the small colonists could not possibly win over them.

The next thing that you need is collaboration. This is explained deeply in the appropriately named chapter called the collaborators in Joseph Ellis' book, Founding Brothers. Benjamin Franklin put it simply, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". He knew that collaboration was the key to overcoming the British. Even though the colonists were from different countries they still hung together to form one power. Joseph Ellis refers to the John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as the two collaborators. The two had a strange relationship yet they always stay friends. When Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence Adams fully supported him. Speaking of collaboration Ben Franklin and Adams help to edit and revise Jefferson's first draft. As Washington was nearing the end of his presidency, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were getting ready to campaign. When Adams was Vice-President him and Jefferson clashed. Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. Even on Adams' deathbed he uttered these words, "Thomas Jefferson still survives." This shows true collaboration. That even though all of their hardships they still came out friends.
Many things are required of leadership. There are many personality traits that each of these aforementioned people had. Washington was kind, confident and decisive. He could also sway an audience. Adams and Jefferson shared a lot of the same traits. Both were intelligent and hard working. The next thing you need is vast collaboration. Nothing can get done when people are not working together. The Declaration would have not been as structurally sound as it is if Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin did not collaborate. What do you think our country would be without collaboration within the government.

Propaganda Essay

Propaganda: We Must go to war!

This paper will show the position of John Adams when it comes to the war with Britain during the American Revolution. I will use all of our class discussions along with the book, Founding brothers by Joseph Ellis. This will be a speech in the form of propaganda.

Welcome my friends. This has been a long and hard road for us colonists. We have made it in a land that our for-fathers have not made for us. We may be under another countries rule but this is the one thing that is only ours and will never be taken away from us. We are not Dutch, Irish, or even British. We are our own people. We have been living here for quite some time and I think that we musty stand up and receive the respect that we earned. Britain has pushed us around for too long. We are their pawns in their glamorous plan. If you do not do it for yourself, do it for your sons and daughters. What will their lives be if they are plagued by ridiculous taxes and unjust laws? Before I move on to the bigger topic I will leave you with this message, we are all brothers in the face of tyranny, united we stand but divided we fall.

If you haven’t noticed there has been in increase in taxes lately. Everything has been taxed and enough is enough. But who can we blame? , sure you could blame inflation or the need for military supplies, but the actual reason for our financial difficulties is a greedy country that only cares for money and power. Yes that’s right, our beloved mother country has turned her back on us and now expects us to fund her many luxuries. We are a developing country that does not need added expenses when we already have too much on our plates. Why should we have higher taxes while there are pompous aristocrats living the life of indulgences because there taxes have suddenly dropped? Coincidence? , I think not. If we were to split off from Britain, our financial difficulties would cease to exist. We already have the resources to sustain ourselves. We might have to give up a few luxuries but it would all be worth it for our ultimate independence. What would you rather choose tea and fine linens or independence? If you were of sound mind you would pick the later of the two. We are not materialistic like our British counterparts. I would not think it would be too terribly hard to find a country that would take our money in exchange for good. Britain is not the only greedy country but they are the only greedy country that takes our freedom away from us.

If you are as patriotic as my fellow friends and I you would not let our country turn to dust in the hands of a few arrogant aristocrats. If we do not go to war what will they tax next, our lives. Do you really want your beloved daughter or son grow up in a world such as ours if we do not do something about it? We need to stand up and fight for what is rightfully ours. We started our lives here, not them. Why should we let an arrogant country push us around when they are thousands of miles away? Before I leave I want you to think about what you want your life to become. Would you rather seek freedom or lay back and take it. I would rather die for my freedom than be under tyrannical rule.

Benjamin Franklin Letter

To whom it may concern,

I have noticed now of late that there is a lot of problems with the world today. Many people leave all of the blame on todays youth, don't get me wrong todays youths are to blame for many problems. I believe that most of the blame lies primarily with the parents. The mind of the young child is a fragile one at best. They are developing morals and an understanding of one's boundaries. They need to have limits so they will learn to respect their elders. Just the other day I was run into by a sporadic youth and by nature I told him to watch himself and to my dismay he answered back, and I do quote " I don't have to listen to you, you are not my father". This troubles me. If a youngling thinks this is alright then the blame must be set on the parent. This is not always true but it happens all to often. I must tell to the current parents of these scoundrels, control your children.

Your Humble Servant, Silence Dogood

Native American Essay

Contact between native Americans and Europeans between the founding of Jamestown (1607) and the outbreak of the American revolution (1776) constituted a continuous cultural revolution for native people.



This essay will show how the European involvement change the Native American way of life. I will use many relevant sources to write this paper. I used the book, The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson and a documentary style movie that we watched in class. I will also use various websites for some information and to reinforce what I say.
European involvement in the lives of the Native Americans changed greatly but also the ideas of the Native Americans that they held sacred stayed the same. No amount of force could stop the Native Americans change what they believed in. The daily life of the Native American would never be the same again after the Europeans settled. They were just too different and brought great things with them that the Native Americans have never saw before.
War was a big influencing factor that changed the Native American's way of life. The first notable war was the Powhatan Confederacy. The war started in 1622 and ended in 1644. At first the settlers fought the indians. As time went on the settlers realized what a great asset the indians were. As time went on there were indians fighting indians and settlers fighting settlers. This was apparent in the French-Indian war. Fort Necessity was the first battle of the war. The Americans wanted control of the colonies but the French just wanted to establish trade. Many of the indians sided with the French. The Delaware and the Shawnee sided with the French and even though the Six Nations were considered neutral many of them sided with the French. At the end of the war the British took Fort Dusquene with the help of the indians. With this victory the British won the war and took most of the land east of the Mississippi. Native Americans played an important role in the wars that shaped America. Without them the French would have never taken Fort Necessity and the British would have never taken Fort Dusquene. The French-Indian war would have probaby not even started if the "half-king" did not scalp those Frenchman. If George Washington would have never taken the blame than there would not have been a war.
The native american culture changed dramatically from before settlers arrived until after they settled. There was no chance that the indians wouldn't have made contact with the settlers. If there is something new and wonderful than you are going to want it. The insians were interested in the goods that the settlers brought over. These new goods made life easier. No longer would they have to hunt a rabbit with a bow and arrow. They could not help using these new tools. Bronze was many times more efficient than stone was. The indians quickly took on to the new ways. During the French-Indian war they used guns to fight which saved many indians that would have died if they used their older weapons. The indians somewhat controlled the Europeans. They signed a treaty with the British yet they were still trading with the French. They just wanted to get the best goods from each of the settlements.
During the first years that the Europeans were in interaction with the Native Americans the indian population decreased greatly. The population cut down by ninety percent because of the European diseases that ravaged the New World. In the matter of four years between 1347 and 1351 the population of Europe was cut down by one-third. Disease was prevalent in oher areas also. The main killer was smallpox. Early people coined the phrase "Columbian Exchange" to describe the passing of deadly diseases. Even though disease killed many Indians there was still another killer. Massacre was a big killer. It was not close as how many died of disease but many people were still killed. This rapid depopulation affeceted the Native Americans greatly. They had fewer warriors and fewer farmers.
There were some things that did not change during the European settlement. Their religion ultimately stayed the same. Relgion usually does not change with the immigration of new people. Their were some people that did convert. Many other things stayed intact. The spirtuality did not suffer. They still had their religous customs that they hold sacred. Even though the Europeans were much different the indians still consulted the elder women to make decisions. They still spoke the same language also. Even today some Native Americans follow the ways of their forefathers. The reason that their language and customs still hold true today is that Native Americans hold their ways sacred and nothing can change that.
Even though many things changed for the Native Americans many things did not. The Europeans made a big impact on the Native Americans but also the Native Americans made a big impact on the settlers. Where would we be today without the indians. We as a people would have not survived. The first settlers that landed at Jamestown would not have made it past the winter if it was not for the Native Americans.

The Last Judgement: Michelangelo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Lastjudgement.jpg

St. Barthalomew

Essay #1 Semester 2

Can a civilization advance/develop living in cyclical time?

Abstract:
The text below will answer the question, can a civilization advance/ develop living in cyclical time? I will use many resources to write this piece. I will use all of our class discussions, The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, and handouts that I have acquired. I also will use various websites.

The best explanation of cyclical time is that time goes in cycles. Every so many years time wil repeat itself. If you think like the Ancient Chinese than time repeats itself every twelve years. If there is a war this year than twelve years later than there must be a war twelve years later. Cyclicalt time differs linear time because linear time never repeats itself, it always is heading in a straight line. The chinese use the moon and jupiter to plot their twelve year cycle. They have observed that people that are born in the same lunar year will have similar traits and characteristics. That is why chniese children are born in the "year of the sheep" or the "year of the monkey".
Many ancient civiliaztions used cyclical time. Among the dozens there were the Incans, mayans, and the ancient greeks. The native americans also used cyclical time. History shows that the native american were developed. Maybe not as developed as Britain at the time but they were developed nonetheless. They had there own religion, houses, and a form of government. That does seem developed enough. As James Wilson said in his book The Earth Shall Weep, When the settlers arrived there were already forms for houses. That is because the native americans had already built houses there. The Greeks also lived in cyclical time. Greece was one of the most advanced civilizations of their time. Many things could not be done without the inventions and innovations of the ancient greeks. Durung the time of ancient greece Archimedes invented the fulcrum and lever. Just think of how life would be without the lever. Also an ancient greek invented the steam engine. Without the engine life would be much harder. Ancient Greece was very advanced and powerful.
The native american civilization might have not been advanced but they were highly developed. They did this when they were split up within the country. They would have innovated much faster if they were united. Another reason the native americans did not advance is because they did not know of anything different. They were happy with what they had. Life is much simpler without technology.

Sources:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm
http://www.ichingwisdom.com/IChingWisdom/zodiac.html

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/1300.shtml

Classroom Discussions

Midterm essay

Midterm Essay Justin Hughes

Abstract

Paragraph by paragraph I will answer the question, "is it the trend of Western History to cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means"? I will tie in all of the revolutions into one idea. I will bring in many sources including Medici Money by Tim Parks, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, and The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

Essay

It is the trend of western history to “cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means”. This question might be able to be answered in one word but it takes a lot of background knowledge and research to come to this conclusion.

The first part of the question is “cultivate a skeptical faith.” This means to bring about a faith that could about doubt in the minds of the citizens. (Faith ) People would doubt this faith. With every new faith there will be more than enough skeptics. The second part of the question is to “avoid dogma”. This basically means “to avoid an established opinion." (2) This was true before the French revolution. Many people in France did what the Church said and that is wrong. To avoid this is to think for your self, or in other words, have humanistic qualities. Humanism changed the people of the time thought. The third part of the question is to “listen and watch well”. What this means is that you must learn from others. Watch and listen what others are doing so you will not make the same mistakes. This goes back to the book “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”. In chapter 18 it explains how other countries (other than Britain) headed into the industrial revolution. It is not like the other countries did it on their own. They learned from Britain’s mistakes. There is no use reinventing the wheel. The last part of the question is “try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means”. This goes back to the saying “it is better to chose means than to define the ends”. Is it the trend of western history to try to clarify what the end product or impact is going to be, or is it the trend to justify the ways to get to that end product. (The means)

The first part of the question is to “cultivate a skeptical faith.” This is what leads to revolution. From the French Revolution to the Flattening of the World. It all starts with one person, or one group that “cultivates” a new idea. Faith does not have to be pertaining to religion. It can be a “complete trust”. (3) Starting with the French Revolution, there was that one group, the humanists, which had a “skeptical faith.” At first many people doubted straying away from the Church. It was forbidden. Once people found out that they could think for themselves, this new faith was not doubted as much. This was the same in “Medici Money”. This new banking was neither a sin nor was it morally wrong. But this is what the Church told everyone. Even though they were also benefiting from this new form of banking. At first people were skeptics, but look at us now, we all use modern banking and it never crossed our minds that maybe back in the time before this revolution that what we are doing would have been a sin in the eyes of the Church. Even today people are skeptical of new ideas. In “the World is Flat” it explains that in the beginning people were skeptical of the “all mysterious Internet”. Now people use the Internet everyday without thinking of how anyone could be skeptical of this wonderful idea. The industrial revolution was a “skeptical faith”. Many people around the world were set in their ideas of how things are supposed to be. They never thought of why you would give up quality for quickness. And the only question to that question is capital. At the end of chapter 18 of “the Wealth and Poverty of Nations” many countries embraced the industrial revolution. What they learned is that embracing some of these “skeptical faiths”, pays off in the end. It just goes to show you that with every new substantial idea there will be people skeptical of the idea but will learn to live with it once they learn the “greater good” that this idea is bringing about.

The second part of the question is it “the trend of Western History to avoid dogma.” Dogma, which has already been explained, is an established opinion. The biggest example is the reformation and humanism. This all happened during the French Revolution. The Church established an opinion that all were supposed to live by and agree with. Usually when a country or civilization does not avoid dogma, there is going to be a change at one time or another. People do not like being told what to think and how to act. This does not bode well with the country’s government. During the days when humanism was just starting, people were shackled by the ideas of the Church. Once the idea of humanism was fully instilled in the minds of the general public then there was no turning back. This is why the Church tried to discourage change. Most importantly the increase of rights. When Calvin wrote his 95 theses the Church tried to censor him but that was not going to happen. In the mind of the humanist you should be able to criticize even the common religion of the state much less its governing power. (Reformation Slideshow) In “Medici Money” it explains that usury was a quote, “unholy” thing to do. The modern banker of the time saw that you could make a lot more money by committing this small sin. If someone thinks that they can do something quicker, more efficient, or more lucrative then they are going to do it. Even though it may be a sin. In their eyes and in the eyes of the humanist, it was not such a sin. To have a functional and relatively peaceful country or society you need to avoid dogma. People should not have to abide by opinions of the state just because that’s what they think. That is why when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution they wrote the Bill of Rights. This is so people would have the right to religion and other rights. In other words they learned from the British and French to avoid dogma at the beginning and not have a revolt or something of that manner.

The third part of the question is to “listen and watch well.” It is imperative that you learn from others mistakes if you want to get ahead in this world. If you don’t you will be a grey blob in the mass of all the other grey blobs that do not observe. This concept shows through during the industrial revolution. As Britain was at the forefront of technology during this time period countries like France, Germany, and the United States were ready to pounce when the time was right. While Britain was making mistakes and fixing them the aforementioned countries were listening and watching well. As chapter 18 in “the Wealth and Poverty of Nations” goes on to say that after Britain did all of the “grunt work” these other countries could come in and start at the same level as Britain. Also in chapter 17 there is a thought from Alexander Gerschenkron. He basically explains that there is no difference in whether to be first or come along later when it comes to industrialization. He also has a good point; the way to get ahead in life is to gain the “ability to leap the gap of knowledge and practice separating the backward economy from the advanced.” (p275, pp4) What this basically means is that to get ahead in life you need to “leap the gap of knowledge” or in other words you need to learn from others rather than taking the time to learn it yourself. Just think, what is quicker, sitting through an hour and twenty minute class or getting notes from the class and reading them?

The fourth and final part of the question is to “try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means.” To clarify and define ends is to set a long term goal for your self or on a much broader scale, the country. Without long term goals a country has no direction what so ever. Long term goals help keep you on track of the thing you really want. During the industrial revolution the countries like Germany, France, and the United States had goals to industrialize even if they were subconscious goals they are still what drove countries and leaders to industrialize. They knew that if they reached their goal of industrialization then there would be a bigger payoff in the end which was a better functioning economy and trade deals with many countries. The second part to this section of the question is that is it better to chose means. Means is how a country gets to their long term outcome. Some of the means of industrialization were to set up trading routes across the world and to learn from others to produce a better functioning economy.

It is the mindset of the typical American the question at hand goes through their mind everyday, even if they don't know it. They don't know it but, everyday this American tries to avoid dogma or watches and listens. All of the worlds greatest changes have influenced this person's thinking and they don't even know it. The aspect of humanism has influenced this American to think for him/herself. The aspect of industrialization has made this American watch as others do and fix mistakes. It is basic problem solving.

Mental or Physical: That is the question

Industrial Revolution Essay


The Industrial revolution was a time of change, as all revolutions are. The Industrial revolution marked a change in how people do business and make goods all over the world. What would the world be without the engine. Without factories products would be in short supply and probably quite expensive. With this knowledge it tells you that the industrial revolution had to be a physical change not a mental change. Without machines there would have not been a revolution. If it were mental then these great minds would have been just thinking of these machines and not putting them to good use and creating machines that would revolutionize the world.
The main point that needs to be stressed is that the industrial revolution was made by the inventions of the time. Some of the inventions of the time were the spinning jenny, the water loom, and the steam engine. The big new invention was the steam engine. The steam engine alone could have caused the industrial revolution. Many sources state in one way or another that it was the machines that did the revolutionizing and not the ideas of the time. Merriam Webster states that the industrial revolution was "a rapid major change in an economy (as in England in the late 18th century) marked by the general introduction of power-driven machinery or by an important change in the prevailing types and methods of use of such machines". Also In the book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, the authors goes on to explain what the three major "substitutions" of the revolution. They were, the substitution of machines for human skill, the substitution of inanimate for animate sources of power (the major machine was the engine), and the use of new and more abundant raw materials. These substitutions increased productivity and in turn created more income for the working man.
Yes some people may argue that it was the ideas that led to the inventions which in turn led to the revolution but, the cause of arevolution has to be direct yet the ideas were indirect and is a very small cause. It is somewhat grasping at straws. These people that invented these revolutionizing inventions were not some great philosophers or even inventors. They invented them to make their way of life easier and their businesses more productive. Take Thomas Newcomen, he was an ironmonger ( a retailer of iron goods), not some rich big shot yet he has been called the father of the industrial revolution for the introduction of the first steam power plant. That just goes to show you that it does not take a inventor to invent something great.

Abstract

The basis of my paper is that it was more of a physical revolution when it comes to the industrial revolution. It was actually the inventions that formed the revolution and not the ideas or even the people. I have used many sources in my paper including Merriam Webster, The wealth and Poverty of Nations written by David S. Landes, and also some information from wikipedia.

Local History: North Newport

Justin Hughes

Ms. Lind/ Mr. Viles

Honors English/ History 10

1/14

History of North Newport: A simple farming community

This report will not only be a history of Newport Maine but will also show how the farming industry grew in small towns and what the people were like during these times. Without Newport there would not be a North Newport. North Newport sits on the outer fringes of Newport, neighboring the community of Stetson. North Newport may not be the home of influential businessmen but it is rich with cultural history and is a quaint little community.

On June 14, 1800 John Hubbard bought the township of Newport and other surrounding towns. He bought nearly 33,147 acres for only 5,635 dollars, which is only about seventeen cents per acre. Land has inflated so much since then. The year was 1807 and it was springtime in Maine. John Ireland and his wife and children arrived in what was then known as East Pond Plantation. They came from Bloomfield, which is now the Skowhegan area. A year earlier John, his brother Joseph, Elam Pratt, and Benjamin Eaton came to Newport to build a cabin in which his family could stay in the following year. For the next six years or so the town developed and the population had nearly grown to one hundred people. In 1814 Newport officially became a town. After the town was incorporated, the townspeople needed some sort of local government. Samuel Hayden became the selectman of North Newport. John Ireland and Daniel Bicknell were put onto the committee to lay out roads and school districts. On March 6, 1815 the town was divided into six different school districts. On May 20, 1816 it was a big day for the whole state of Maine but on this day the town voted in favor of separating from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This history is just from the settlement of the town up to the actual incorporation of the town.

The life of a settler in the early days was much different than than the life of an average person today. Imagine a life without even the simple luxury of running water. Many settlers then were farmers. Many people that live in North Newport now are somehow connected to the surrounding farms. The first house of the settlement which was owned be Deacon Daniel Ireland, was a one floor simply built cabin. Before John Ireland, came his land was completely covered in trees. Before he could start building his cabin he had to clear land. The floor was dirt and the walls were not insulated. The small cabin was lived in by nearly eleven people. All of the children except the little ones slept in the loft on straw mats. The cabin was heated by a fire that was surrounded by stones. Their heating fire was also used for cooking. The diet of the settlers usually consisted of stew. The stew did not usually consist of meat unless it could be hunted. The livestock was used for farming. The whole family worked Monday through Saturday and the summer and fall were devoted to tending and farming the fields. The women stayed indoors and tended to the baby if they had one and also they did chores like cleaning or cooking. Men tended the farm and did things around the cabin. Children went to school but after they had their chores. Children usually went to school until they were twelve or thirteen unless their parents would send them into the village of Newport. In that time if you did not grow it or make it yourself than you did not have it. There were not any stores in North Newport where you can just buy anything you need, nor are there any stores even today.

Schooling was big on the minds of the settlers. The first school in North Newport was built on Route 222. This was the only school of the community and one teacher by the name of Amanda Barker taught fifty-two students. Not long after, this school was no longer used and a new school was built on the Rutland Road. This was called the Rutland Road School. After this two other schools were established. One was built on Route 222 not far from the Stetson town line. This school was called the Hubbard School. The other was on the corner of Route 222 and the road I now live on which is Durham Bridge Road. The school was called the Coburn Corner School. All three of these schools were one room classrooms taught by one teacher. During the winter they were heated by a woodstove in the center of the room. Only grades one through eight went to these schools. If you wanted to go to high school then you had to go into the “Village of Newport”. In 1942 these schools were closed and students were bussed into town.

Before the time of churches in Newport the two faiths (the Baptists and Christians) met in the two school houses. The Baptists met in the Coburn Corner School and the Christians met in the Hubbard School. This was an inadequate place for a church. They even had to put planks across the seats. There were two main churches of North Newport. There was the Baptist Church and the Christian Church. The Baptist church was created on June 23, 1817. Some notable members of the church were Joseph Ireland, John Ireland (he was also the Deacon of the church), Samuel Hayden, and Daniel Bicknell. The church met every Saturday for service. The Christian Church was created in 1852. The church services were held on Saturday also. Some members of one church attended both church services. The Christian church shows periods of time in which there were no church services. In 1950 a meeting was held to plan on building a church for both the Baptists and the Christians. The meeting place was one mile from each of the school houses. In 1857 Abiah Steward was contracted to build the meeting house for 1,000 dollars. The church was sectioned off, the Christians on the East side and the Baptists on the West side of the church. The pews were sold for ten-fifty dollars. The first pastor for the Christian church was Rev. Moses F. Davis and the first Baptist Minister was Rev. Mr. Robinson.

In 1897 the willing workers were formed. The willing workers were a group of women that gathered money for the upkeep of the church and for other needs in the town. In the 1900’s the willing workers installed a tin ceiling in the church.

Farming was a big industry in the Newport community. Many products were shipped abroad. (Abroad meaning Waterville, Bangor, and even Boston) Meat, hay, potatoes, grain, and milk were sent away to different towns such as Bangor and Waterville. Some products were even sent as far as Boston. The farming industry gave access from North Newport to Corinna. This may not be too far today, (only a couple of miles) but this gave settlers the power to ride on horse to Corinna easily. The dairy farmer in North Newport was not at all short of business. Milk was picked up at the farms, taken to Corinna, and then shipped off by train to Newport. Other than farming many people of North Newport were attracted be the Woolen Mill in Corinna. With the invention of the car it was relatively easy to get from North Newport to Corinna. Even though not everyone had a car, people did carpool. Some people lived in Corinna for a short period of time so they could work at the mill. There were three prominent farms in the North Newport Community. The Hillacre Farm was founded by Densmore Stewart Hilliker in 1910. Densmore graduated from MCI and then he moved back to North Newport. The farm was built on what is now Route 222. In a short time the farm grew to a pretty good size that could support his family. Densmore’s daughter Josephine married Keith Smith. Keith soon took over the farm. At this time they were growing potatoes and hay. In 1969 Carl Densmore Smith combined his already acquired farms in Corinna and started the Hillacre Farm. In 1985 Carl R. Smith III took over and now resides in the farm house. This is only one of the farms but the Coburn farm is now part of the Hillacre estate. The Sawyer farm in my mind is not really in North Newport. Much of North Newport is covered with farms and fields. This is why today North Newport is considered a farming community.

Native Americans once live in Newport. The first meeting of the town was brought together because the settlers feared that there was going to be an Indian attack. At the meeting subjects were what to do if the Indians attacked. Each family was to have a gun over their fireplace in case they attacked. A few days later 150 Native Americans were seen on the Stetson River. Two people were sent to find out if they intended to harm the settlers. The settlers quickly found out that the Indians were not there to harm them. The Indians were from the Penobscot tribe and were fleeing from another tribe.

North Newport may not be a town by itself but it is rich with cultural history. There is more history in this section of a town than many towns in the state. North Newport is small community and almost everyone knows everyone. In one hundred short years this community has made a lot of history. It has seen only one murder. It is all around a good place to live.

Faith Vs. Fact

Essay Fact Vs. Faith

The difference between fact vs. faith has been puzzling man for since the encyclopedic century or maybe even earlier. It is a topic that has created a lot of controversy. Religious topics always do. Faith and Fact are very much different yet they come together in a way. To me faith is what you know may not be true but believing in it anyway. To explain it better it is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Merriam Webster. Faith is kind of like a family heirloom, it was passed down to one's kids. The only reason I believe in what I do is because of my parents. If my parents were Muslim I would would be praising Allah and not God. As I grow up I think more and more for myself and do actually believe in God for myself and not just because of my parents. Faith is questioned on a constant basis but sometimes you have to believe in somethings or you will be confused beyond humanly possible. Fact is a whole different thing. To me fact is something that can be backed up by more than a few sources. Fact defined by Merriam Webster is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality". Fact is what I normally go on. I like for stuff that I believe in to be factual even if sometimes it cannot be. Fact and faith have changed substantially over time. Before anyone questioned the pope or the bible, faith was fact. Whatever was said in the bible was true and if you disputed that then you were prosecuted. Around the time of the encyclopedic century people started to question what was said in the bible. Galileo found that the universe did not revolve around the earth. Once people found that the universe actually did not revolve around the earth they started to question other things in the bible.
There are many differences between fact and faith. Fact can be backed up by any sources. Faith is not usually that factual. Usually faith is centered in one piece of text. Yes, some things in the bible can be backed up by other sources but information like the creation of man cannot be backed up. Fact and faith usually clash. Webster makes a good point "faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof". One huge topic up for debate is evolution. Fact believes in evolution and faith believes in creationism. There are many pieces of information that back up evolution but there is only one text that backs up creationism and that is the bible. Many people center their life on fact rather than faith because you can not really discriminate against fact. What is real is real and you cannot change that. Fact can be used by all countries and religions and it will still hold true. The dominant faith in an area changes from country to country and even from state to state. Science will always be at "war" with religion. Its a given that scientific fact is revolutionary but people will always have that underlying aspect of God or Allah or whatever they believe in because they have been brought up to just believe what is they know to be true.
Even though faith and fact conflict with each other in so many ways there are some similarities. Many times what is in the Bible is actually true. In many countries people only believe in their faith. So in a way faith is actually fact. In these countries there are multiple texts that back up what is said about their faith. What is said in these pieces of information may not be true in the American sense of the word but in their culture their faith is their truth.
Well this may be taboo to some people that are reading this right now but im going to come out and say it, I believe in God. I may believe in God but I also believe in evolution. I may believe in science but I need something to explain stuff that just can't be explained such as the creation of man. I am torn between two forces. One force tells me to belive in logic and one tells me to believe in faith. It is like the little angel and little devil on one's shoulder. Even though I have faith, science will always be the the driving force behind what I think and what I say.

The Encyclopedic Century: Questions

Questions to consider about content:
1. Encyclopedias are circles of information that did not come about until the 18th century.
2. The history of the Church and the teachings that were in the bible.
3. As time went on more people bought and accepted information that was not only stored in the bible.
4. After time went on the State did not have as much power over what poeple wrote. It is similar to the first amendment.
5. Voltaire seemed to not care what other people thought of his work. He almost seemed like a criminal because of all of the warrants he was charged with.

Questions about vocabulary:
1. Emblem means a general view of what people thought of what a encyclopedia was.
2. philosophe means people who knew a lot about the "circle of teachings".
3. techne means the craft of given person. It may be baker or carpenter.
4. ancien regime was the laws and system of government that was in place during the days of the uprising of the encyclopedia.
5. abstraction means the difference in the culture, or simply diversity.

Consilience

Cosimo, Lerenzo, and the double entry bookkeeping system Justin Hughes
10/24/07

The Medici Family made a lot impact in the Renaissance but there were three factors that came together to make one big impact. Cosimo de’ Medici, Lerenzo de’ Medici, and the double entry ledger system made a great impact.
Cosimo de’ Medici also known as Cosimo the Elder was born on September 27, 1389. He was the first of the Medici leaders. When he was born he inherited wealth and business sense from his father who was a banker. Cosimo is known to be the greatest collector of the Medic wealth. He was named the Priore of the Republic. During his reign as Priore of Florence he began to instate public charges which got him exiled from Florence. He went to Venice with his brother Lerenzo de’ Medici where they built the Medici wealth quite substantially. After a year his exile was lifted and he returned to Florence. When he returned form exile he used his power to create peace in Northern Italy by balancing the power between all of the major cities of Italy. After he died he was awarded the title of Pater Patriae which means “father of his country. Since he was the great super power of the Medici family, he was a critical part of the cultural impact.
Giovanni de Bicci de Medici is noted for the using of the double-entry bookkeeping system used be businesses even today. It is best stated as “Record keeping of organizations is based on a double-entry system, whereby each transaction is recorded on the basis of its dual impact on the organization’s financial position or operating results or both. Information relating to the financial position of an enterprise is presented on a balance sheet, while disclosures about operating results are displayed on an income statement” by Microsoft Encarta. Using this system helped the Medici family rise wealth because it helped them keep very accurate and precise ledgers of their credits and debits. This was a relatively an old system because it was developed in the 14th century and Giovanni did not start using it until he was head of the Medici Bank. Without a careful ledger of incoming and outgoing money the Medici Bank would have never grown so large or be as successful as it was.
Lorenzo de Medici was another aspect in the impact of the patronage of the Medici family. He was born January 1st 1449. He was the grandson of Cosimo and he like all of the other Medici before him was born into a wealthy family. Lorenzo was not as fortunate as Cosimo because he did not have the business sense that his grandfather had. This resulted in losses in the time he was leading the bank. Many branches of the Medici bank were put to an end because of bad loans. Also like his fellow male members of the Medici family he ruled Florentine. But his leadership was not direct. He ruled through people in the council, staged marriages, and payoffs. In addition to commissioning artists he also wrote poetry himself. It probably started with his mother on account of she was interested in art and she was also a poet.
With these two big influential people and the double entry ledger system there is no limit on how much you can change a time period and the culture of that time period. The Medici family were a long line of patrons. The concept of Patronage means one person or organization giving money or support to an individual. In most cases the Medici gave financial aid to artists. The word patron comes from the Latin word patronatus which is the relationship between the patronus (the senior member of the party) and the clientes (the lesser of the two parties involved). Even though the Medici gave money to these artists just because they like art they still got a good reputation in the art community. The Medici family did not give money to just anyone they had good taste in art. Giovanni was the first patron in the Medici family. In addition to artists the Medici also commissioned Galileo to tutor the Medici children. Among the many great artist the Medici commissioned were Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo not to mention countless others. Just think, without the help of the Medici there might have not been Leonardo’s Renaissance Man or Michelangelo’s painting of the Sistine Chapel. Just think of a world without those influential paintings. The world today might be different. The greatest impact of the end result of all of these aspects coming together, which is patronage, is probably Renaissance art. Art during the Renaissance might have not been as grand without the money given to theses artists. Without money artists can not paint. Art during the renaissance made people in paintings more real. Artists in this time gave them real features like muscles and wrinkles. Without Cosimo the Medici would not have as much money to patronize artists. They would not have as many works of art attributed to them. Without the double entry bookkeeping system the Medici would have never taken very good ledgers and they would have not made as much money so they could not commission so many artists. In a nutshell Renaissance art would have not been as influential.

Humanism and the flat world Essay

Humanism and the flattening of the world are both very similar but at the same time very much different. They both had major impacts on civilization and the indivduals. Both the good and bad consequences from each concept are pointed towards one group or another such as the indivdual or the government. There was not only good consequences for the indivdual there were also bad consequences in both instances.

The concept of humanism changed the way people thought of not only themselves but of others too. Humanism made people think for themselves and not just do what the Church tells them to do. Humanism made individuals special and unique and not just one face in a crowd of thousands. Humanism was simply a revolution. A revolution that made a huge impact. Without humanism the Middle Ages might have gone on for much longer than it did. In both instances of humanism and the flattening of the world were brought on by recent discoveries of the time. In the instance of humanism, different texts from ancient Greece and Rome were discovered that showed a whole new view on life and the way the government treated individuals.

The flattening of the world brought on a whole different kind of change. Instead of making people more individualized it put the whole world population into one huge group. Instead of an American you are a citizen of the world. The reason for this is that in a flattening world it does not matter where you're from, it matters how good of an education you have. This was a revolution that happened in a relatively short time. Twenty years ago no one thought we would outsource jobs half way across the world. In this new world an individual has the power to collaborate on a much wider and even perhaps an international scale. All this person needs is a good Internet connection and the know how.

Both of these concepts changed the way people thought of themselves and the world around them. Both were revolutions that was new for the time. No one in the renaissance period of time ever thought for themselves until the humanists came along. Everyone was too worried of what the church was going to think. It only takes one person to change the minds of thousands in a very short period of time. Other people saw that they were not going to be struck down by God if they didn't think what the Church tells them to think. The difference between the two concepts is that it seems that the people in the humanism revolution were moving forward and thinking for themselves but in the flat world revolution people are somewhat retrogressing before the time of humanists. People are losing there identities. Being an American meant more twenty years ago than it does now. Now people are just citizens of the world. Now we are just buyers and sellers in the world. Both concepts have good and bad consequences. When it comes to humanism most the bad consequences were centered towards the Church. The Church could not control the masses anymore with the threat of the going to hell for every sin you commit. The individual could be great. They could achieve more than just being religious and go heaven. They had more to work for. Before humanism the main goal for someone was to just get to heaven. When it comes to the flattening of the world it is the other way around. Most of the good consequences were gained by the government and the big guys. The government can get their goods so much cheaper in a flat world. Yes there were some good consequence for the individual. The individual could connect to the world from their own home. But in turn they lost there identity as an American or any other person in which their country has embraced the flat world.

Not done yet but oh well

"Faustian Bargain"

I think a Faustian Bargain is when someone gives up their soul to the devil in turn for someting that they could not normally have. In Faustus's case it was the power to do black magic.

Le Morte D' Arthur

Le Morte d' Arthur first tells the story of Arthur's upbringing. How he pulls the sword out of the stone and beocmes the king of britain. Arthur fights in battles to show his kingship. He marries Gwynevere . He then establishes the knights of the round table which will fight for the principle that might does not make right. The story then tells the story of Launcelot, the greatest knight of the round table. It tells many of his quests and his affair with Gwynevere and how in the end Arthur fights Launcelot.

Book 4: The once and future king

Summary: The Orkney children start to hate Arthur and Lancelot and they want to revael Guenever's affair with Lancelot. They tell Arthur in hids Justice Room. They tell him if they can find proof then he will prosecute him to the fullest extent of his new laws but if they are wrong he will prosecute them. While Arthur is away hunting Mordred and Agravaine catch Lancelot in Guenever's room. Lancelot kills Agravaine and Mordred and the other knights run off. Guenvever is convicted of Adultery and is to be burned at the stake. Lancelot rescues her and rides off. Lancelot and Arthur fight in France but when Arthur learns of Mordred trying to take over he rides back to England. He has a page record hi life. This pages name is Thomas Malory.