The Gullible are Legit Believers.

In the articles titled Chinese Cultural Studies: The Mandate of Heaven, and King James I: On the Divine Right of Kings, that we read for Tuesday, we learned about what it meant to have legitimacy. No, it did not mean you never lied or your actions were somehow related to the definition to the word legitimate as it is used most commonly nowadays it meant the amount of belief others had on whatever it was you claimed to be the reason why you should be in charge. Through the reading, and through the explanation and discussion in class, we learned what it means for someone to be legitimate. In the context of what we are learning, in government- related terms, to have legitimacy means you have a reason upon which your claimed ''right'' to govern, or to have power, is based upon. The reason used does not have to be a good reason, but as long as people believe in what you say, you are considered to be a legit ruler.

I think that if this legitimacy were the only thing that dictated the ability and strength of a 'leader' to lead, then just about any good storyteller with imagination and even the smallest ability to persuade could potentially become leader. If this were true, would it not be more of the people's fault if their leader were a fake? The legitimacy, at least in the past, was mostly based on the gullibility of the people. But as always, people learn from their mistakes. That’s what our civilizations have been doing generation after generation, learning from previous mistakes and making new mistakes when deciding on who should be their leaders.

We went from looking for leaders who were based off the ideals like that of the Mandate of Heaven, to Foreign and Domestic Political Knowledge. I think the drastic change in what we look for in leaders is often changing and being modified because as time goes by, no one thing stays the exact same forever, meaning our needs are constantly changing, causing for us to realize/ discover new things and believe in others.

As is seems, most times when we have decided to change our type of leaders it is because their legitimacy is no longer to legit since our ever changing opinions come to judge and question that which had once been considered unquestionable just because it was. We seem to change what we look for because the governments set up no longer cover our needs and in most cases, have become selfish overtime, forgetting about those who it was made to protect. So legitimacy is very tightly connected with the gullibility of others. But the gullibility could also be just need to believe in something until the next best thing comes along.

Fear vs. Love

Is it better to be loved or to be feared?

According to Machiavelli, when in a position of power, it is better to be feared than loved. I wonder how true this really is. I think that in any true relationship, it is better to be loved than it is to be feared because there is a very faint line between hatred and fear. After long time of fear, people tend to always realize that they should not fear, and that if backed by others, can stand up to you. That is when fear changes to hatred. I think tat for most, fear starts as hatred and slowly becomes something more intense, and as intense as hate it self.

In a perfect world, people would never turn on you, love would exist forever, and those who loved you would always remain at your side. That is usually true, that is of course, if they actually loved you, and were not pretending to. If that is truly the case, than you are lucky. Actually being loved is being liked for exactly who you are. You can’t call genuine love something 'similar' to it because no such thing exists. I mean, actual love, is in my mind, almost impossible to achieve. Usually those who claim to genuine love you can easily turn on you if you do something that reaches their limit, or something related to you cause them to reach their limit. I think that in most relationships, say in positions of high power, for example, in a royal family, sure. Many of your family members love you, but say you are next in line to be prince, there always tends to be someone who thinks themselves better deserving of it, may it be the throne or any other important position in regular life. There is always jealousy, resentment, lack of belief, and all those sentiments/ emotions related to the relationship between someone in a slightly more successful position, than the other. So being loved is almost quite impossible since jealousy is a big factor. But if truly loved, the people with such emotions towards you would decide to not act upon their feelings. So is being feared really that much better than being loved?

I mean, hatred could just as easily be masked with fear. In most cases, fear is cause by the need to dislike, to be constantly scared, being intimidated, and all those emotions related to fearing someone tend to be somewhat linked to hate. There is no person, or if so, a very small amount, of people who enjoy feeling bad. Fear is not an emotion often enjoyed and when people don’t like things, they begin of ways to change it so that they like how things are.  I disagree with what was said in class, fear is not forever, fear is temporarily and dangerously close to hate. If power is to be maintained, hate is not something that helps keep it. Fear has the same problem as love, people can fear you and be jealous of, making up plans of ways to get rid of you, but never really thinking they ever could because they are scared of you. But in tough times, it leads people against you, even if they fear you, people do crazy things in brave moments, things that would in other circumstances not be done due to their fear of it.

So in conclusion, I think that neither is actually very good. But I think that if one had to be chosen, it would have to be love since a drastic change must be made by those claiming to love you, in order for them to turn on you, while with fear, its relatively close.

Liberality

Machiavelli's The Prince,

While not necessarily a difficult reading, what it contained where definitely touchy subjects to think about. I'm not saying the reading was easy but because when we re-read it in class, I understood a few things way better than I did when I first read it alone. As the text was explained in class, I realized a few things I hadn’t realized on my own. For example, the true meaning of liberality within the context of the reading, sure I though oh, liberal, a bit more open minded, more giving, more concerned, but not necessarily money wise.

I don’t necessarily agree with what Machiavelli is advising people to do if they want to keep and maintain the level of power.  I've always been taught generosity is a good thing and that it is important for people to always be generous towards others, not only with money but also with various things, in general, generosity was a thing to be shared with those around you. Of course though, the ability to be generous, or liberal, as Machiavelli says, slowly decreases as time goes by, especially if it involves money.

But this is not always the case because liberality has to do with the ability to be free and loose with the generosity you provide to others, but if you are constantly being generous with your money, you will most likely loose it. So I think that in any case, Machiavelli should have just said that instead of faking to be liberal and generous, one should just be generous and liberal, every once in a while. I think that this is more impacting because if you are constantly investing money and giving it away, people wont necessarily say that you are liberal and generous but I figure that they'd say something about a rich person flaunting their money to society and just saying, "oh, look how rich I am! I have enough to waste in even terrible, unworthy causes." and that isn't very great. Instead, if you gave money out every once in a while to various different groups, I think that would work better because the people would say sure, he has tons of money, but he doesn’t waste it, he is consciously generous and liberal when he is generous. Which is better, because if you seek attention and power, they will be like little bursts of energy, so everything you are liberal and generous, other will say, oh, that person is sooo generous! And they will admire you, while also recognizing your financial power. But if you followed what I understood to be Machiavelli's advise, of always being liberal until you become broke, or just pretend and always be liberal, but in reality turning into a fake greedy person in charge, with monetary power, sure you'll have money, but eventually people will stop paying attention to every time you 'act' generously and liberal with your 'money,' because it would just become an aspect of who you are. Something you always do, which is less impressive. You would have to 'give more' in order to maintain the attention, and the power provided by that attention.

Contrasting Confucism and Han Fei-tsu, along with the Greeks.

I think Confucius thinks that in a good government the people are
pretty much one with the government, but still are somewhat scared of the government. Actually, not so much scared but more as in reflective, as in things would be done on how well the government itself did things. Since there is trust in the government and the government’s decisions, any rules that are set, according to what I understood from Confucius, will be rules that are followed since it’s thought that things are done in the best interest of the people, not of the leader. I also got that the Confucius ideals on government believe that all people deserve the same rights and the same opportunities to get ahead. Meaning, that everybody earns the amount that is needed by him or her, so everybody can afford to get what is needed. In other words, a level of opportunity and need is provided so that equality can exist, therefore simultaneously getting rid of injustice. I think that his ideology could have been somewhat of the basis of what the communist ideals represent and aim towards.

Confucius-ism strongly believed that in a government, the military was one of the least important things out of three main things. In Han Fei-tsu’s and the Greek’s case, the military though of as something very important as it provided safety. To the Greeks, it was particularly important because and safety provided with the ability to think freely and express oneself, which is usually a positive thing. While on the other hand, Han Fei-tsu agreed with it being important not only because it created safety, but because it could also produce fear and fear was believed to be the most successful method on keeping people from making ‘mistakes.’ On top of that, Han Fei-tsu believed that the citizens should be highly controlled, not giving option of free opinion. In other words, he did not believe that the people should have a say about what the government is doing, since ‘government knows best’. The Greeks thought that military was the very important, but also believed that the people governed should have a say on how their lives are to be lived.

The Philosopher King... real, skills, fake?

The ideal leader needs to be a lot of things.  He or she needs to be humble, caring, and thoughtful as well as being persuasive, intelligent, and confident enough to successfully perform their duties.  I think the skill that usually makes a leader gain followers is the ability to be confidant and convincing when giving out speeches.  To use Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, an ideal leader would be able to convince the population living on the lowest floor that what is real to them is not necessarily the real reality, that the reality is another and so on, until you reach the full reality outside of the cave.  A leader also has to have the best interest for his/her people and avoid corruption.

According to Plato, this leader would be the 'Philosophers King' because Plato, being a philosopher himself, thought that the perfect leader should be a philosopher as well since options are best analyzed and decisions better made by philosophers.  Plato must have been slightly (or not so slightly) conceited because the King that he described sounded a bit like him.  Plato thought that this ideal leader had not been found and I believe that that is true, we have not found the perfect leader.  I believe that we have found leaders with lots of these qualities, but never perfect. 

Some of these leaders that have had some of the qualities of the “Philosophers King” are not always the ones that reach their full potential. From what I have come to gather, most leaders seem to be very promising, having much potential and often being successful at reaching the goals that they promise, but never do they make it all the way. Jobs always seem somewhat left undone, as if a blank was left for someone else to fill, or later in time, they fail completely and collapse. I think that in our time, such a person as a 'Philosopher King' could most definitely exist but our society would not accept him as such. When will we know that we have a Philosopher King among us? When will he show up? Will he come in a time of great need kind of like a prophet or savior, or show up randomly?

The Wisdom of The People

The article that explained the Legalist Views on Good Government disturbed me a bit. For one, the way it talked about the importance of social level difference and the ‘significant intellectual difference’ between the 'people' and the 'ruler/leader/person in charge of governing, made it seem as if the 'people' knew nothing, as if they were useless, incapable of making good decisions, and lacked the ability to have a properly formed opinion. I think that while laws are important in any government, but there comes a time when the voice of the common people must be heard because they are the ones who usually get the worst bit, the hardest lifestyle, the lowest quality of attendance, of course though, not only are the poor people the ones who should voice their opinions and be able to have make an impact in the government’s decisions but also the middle class people and those who are upper class. I think that as a leader of a country, it is important to have and encourage participation from those who you govern because they have a perspective different to yours and could help improve the way you run your government. While when you set laws controlling everything, and as I understood from the Legalist views on good government, laws are set to keep people from making anything but the good choices. But this is what made me confused, errors are necessary if progress is to be made, so how successful could this actually be? And even with laws, many are broken, so what should be the moral of the people? Do not break laws or do what is honest and correct, therefore avoiding having a serious law system? I think that everything in moderation might be the best option since in every place, there is someone who is defiant, but not all should be limited because of the few.

Leaders in us.

Are leaders made or do average people develop into leaders? I think that it really just depends on what is going on at the time. The way that I see it, if at the time, things are going well overall, then leaders develop, not necessarily because there is a need for them but because they might be needed later. I think that it is during these kinds of times when leaders seem to not be needed that leaders develop on their own, although not all of them as strong as others or each other. I think that during tough times, many potential leaders develop but only a few actually have the strength, knowledge, and ability to be leaders. It is much more difficult to be a leader when things are bad, that is why we are forced to pick, to create our leaders in such times. Some times we have been wrong when picking which then caused many problems that involve our rights not being respected.
When leaders are chosen in chaos, people tend to think the immediate, not long term, this has Worked for the most part, but has also caused devastation issues in between governments and their people. I believe that many things can go wrong when we pick our leaders because power is addiction, some know how to control themselves but others don't, that is how dictatorships happen. Are there specific ways to know when a potential leader can turn into a potential dictator? Is it possible that this change between leader to oppressed is unpredictable and/ or  impossible?

I'm not sure what my opinion is, I can't decide on whether or not the change is possible, since I've never really had the opportunity to try and decide. But taking into consideration what was said about there being an ideal leader, the "Philosopher King," I think that yes, it does exists, not just one of them, but many.

Socialism, Communism, Democracy

What is Socialism? Socialism according to the dictionary is: 1. (In Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles, Or 2. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In my words, Socialism is a system of social organization that to Karl Marx was the first step to true communism, it supposedly consists on communist ideals of equal distribution except that its all controlled by a central power that owns it.

Communism according to the dictionary is: 1. A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2.  A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. My definition is a system of social organization developed by Marx, Engels, and Stalin, whose goal is to eliminate social levels, inequality, and monetary systems. "To each depending on necessities, and each depending on his dedication" is the definition of equality.

Democracy according to the dictionary is: 1. A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. In my words a democracy is a type of government/ system of social organization where decisions are on popular vote.

So which is better? Is anyone of these the ideal government or could it be something else? Pros? Cons? If the whole world where to become one of these, which one would improve overall lifestyles the most? Which one would eliminate issues such as hunger, homelessness, pollution, over population, poverty, sustainable resources, etc.?

Angles and Sides

For the most part of the history of humanity, we as evolving beings who lived in communities have had some type of system to govern us and help control the populations. So with this, along with the creation of governments, various different ideologies developed. Such ideologies were that of capitalism, democracy, autocracy, socialism, imperialism, communism, etc. It was through this that later, new emerging governments began to take up, adopt, and merge some of these ideas to create governing systems, parties, and such.

In the movie, The Lives of Others, that we watched in class, we were able to learned a bit about East Germany's government, the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The movie revolved around the lives of a playwritter, an actress, and the Stasi. While the movie was not so much informative in my point of view, it was certainly a touching storyline. I just wonder, why was the East German government put as something terrible, and the Stasi as something even worse? Sure that the Stasi really did ruin some innocent peoples lives because of false tip-offs, and suspicion, but among those there were also many who were attempting against the German Democratic Republic.

In the movie, the extremes were very well shown; as they served their purpose, exaggerate somewhat the negatives. One can't really say "oh, the stasi were horrible people, how could they live spying on others, and interrogate, etc." But I think that in order for us to really be able to form an opinion on something, we must be shown, or learn about both the pros and cons of it. Although I don't know all that much about how things really were in East Germany, I refuse to believe it was all that bad because the ideals that the East German Communist Party was based on, were really good, even though in the application of those ideals, the country took a more socialist form and up to some point deprived it's citizens of their rights to privacy. But of course I think the invadance of Dreyman's home and life was a bit tooo invading. I understand that governments have to keep track of what it's citizens are doing, just about every government that wants to maintain their reputation and their political views intact, are forced to try and control to a certain extent, it's citizens freedom of speech. Not even here in the United States do we have total freedom of speech, even with all the rights that are made to protect us.

While I watched the movie, I made a connection between what the Stasi did and what the CIA and FBI do. Their jobs are to protect the country, and remove threats. Sure it isn't very common to hear about the CIA or FBI going around bugging homes and assigning special trackers/ spies to know about all you do, but that's because it isn't all that public either, because possible threats must first be proved threats, right? But, it is still done. From what I've heard, there are files kept on each and everyone of us, sure not extremely detailed but that's because most of us are very happy with our government so why would we talk bad about it or try to make a change in the way it works? For one, I think that there is a thin line between thinking of ways to improve the way in which a government works and in the way it is run, and dis liking the government to the point of bashing it and criticizing it in a non-productive way. I think that these two can be easily confused with one another, which is why many times, injustice is committed in many places around the world, no one wants to be talked bad about.

Haiti Essay Outline

Thesis: Given that Haiti has a history with natural disasters, they should have been better prepared for the 2010 Earthquake by having stronger infrastructure, better crises management, and more governmental honesty.

A)   The lack of a strong infrastructure in the cities of Haiti caused more damage than there should have been.

                        i.         No reinforcing of construction plans

                       ii.         Lack of building codes

                     iii.         Damage caused to infrastructure, delayed aid.

                     iv.         Rubble and debris caused by collapsed constructions caused roads to constantly be filled with people seeking open space, restricting movement.

                       v.         Stronger infrastructure makes a difference in amount of damage, ex: Chile.

B)   In a developing country governmental honesty is essential for future success but Haiti’s government did not have that.

                        i.         Corruption causes the people to loose trust in their government.

                       ii.         Dishonesty causes economic decline/ problems.

                     iii.         Mal-management of dilemmas/ issues leads to problems such as Haiti having no controlling/ strong government during disaster.

                     iv.         Disorganized hierarchical structure of authority and decision-making disables ability to advance and improve.

                       v.         Political Figures not doing their job leads to gaps in the governing system. i.e. Rene Preval

C)   Haiti should have had a customized crisis management plan, considering their vast experience.

                        i.         Haiti followed the basic Crisis Management Plan that is traditionally used as an outline for creating customized plans.

                       ii.         Formal disaster planning tends to 1. Fail to be implemented or 2. Help with the occurring disaster.

                     iii.         Inaccurate record keeping i.e. count of injured, missing, and dead makes it hard for organizations to help to their full extent.

                     iv.         Rescue and recovery plans of individual relief agencies, tend to conflict with the government’s.

                       v.         NGO’s follow their own aid plans, causing varying methods, which result in confusion of the people.

                     vi.         Lack of a good crises management plan causes ground organizations struggle when helping survivors.

Location-ing

Quality of life based on location. What does this mean? Simply, it means, if you live in a place where money is not an issue, typically with high- income and mid- high- income families, it tends to feel safer. The community has the money available for whatever necessities they have, and for whatever luxuries that they want to have. Children grow up highly protected, with just about all the things needed to be successful in life. Sadly, with lower-income families, that is not the case. They live in overpopulated areas where most of the population is in public housing. Most of these neighborhoods are usually, not only lacking resources to improve their conditions but also lack the ambience and safety needed to raise children and to help them develop a more productive mind-set. It is usually in these neighborhoods where the most danger and violence develops.

So this brings on the question, should neighborhoods be mix-income housing or should things be left as they are?

It’s a debatable subject. The ideal neighborhood is one where families of mixed- income are able to live fulfilled and happy lives with safety and good education for their children, and in a nice environment surrounding them. Would it work? I think the ability of such a complexly built community to exist depends on the open- mindedness of those living in such places. Mixed- income calls for more racial and ethnic diversity. It also makes the contrast between cultures more noticeable and present, which could be both a good thing and a bad thing, once again, depending on the open- mindedness of the people. For such communities to develop in the city of Chicago would call for a dramatic change. Whether we’d like to admit it or not, Chicago really is a very segregated city, and has been that way for many generations. Some of these are of course, self-created by mostly immigrants who wish to connect with others of similar believes, that’s why they also say Chicago is a very very diverse city. But back to the idea of mixed- income neighborhoods, I think it would have a positive effect in not just those who live inside them, but also those around them.

If high and low income neighborhoods ceased to exist, I think that  the inequality in the treatment of certain neighborhoods and those attending those surrounding schools, along with the contrast of each neighborhood’s quality, would also cease to exist or at least lessen by a great amount. I disagree that mixing these two would only impoverish those that are already poor but that live in a place where it’s mostly wealthy people, because through mixed- income, that wouldn’t happen, they’d be just about balanced out and the public education would be more beneficiary and we would be rid of the problem of some schools being better than others because of the location of them. So yes, mix- income is ideal and would be much better, but the only way for it to work is for people to be willing to help improve their own and other’s lives.

History Sources: Part 3...even more

-(SECONDARY - ANALITICAL ARTICLE)

Piotrowski, Chris. "Earthquake in Haiti: A Failure in Crisis Management?" Organization Development Journal 28, no. 1 (2010): 107-112. http://search.proquest.com/docview/197985782/13314E9C6779D86269/1?accountid=3360

-(PRIMARY- Article)

Suozzi, Marguerite. "Haiti: Damage to Infrastructure Delays Aid Deliveries." Global Information Network, Jan 15, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/457549060?accountid=3360.

-(PRIMARY- Report)

Margesson, R., Taft-Morales, M. "Haiti Earthquake: Crisis and Response" Congressional Research Service, Jan 15, 2010: 2-25

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41023_20100115.pdf

-(SECONDARY- Analitical)

Bradt, G. "Haiti and Crisis Management" Prime-Genesis (Online), Jan 15, 2010. 

http://www.primegenesis.com/blog/527/haiti-and-crisis-management/  

-(PRIMARY- Article)

Lobe, J. "Haiti: U.S. Acts Quickly on Debt Relief Ahead of Preval Visit." Global Information Network, Mar 09, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/457549296?accountid=3360

“Haiti.” The New York Times, October 26, 2011. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/haiti/index.html (accessed November, 2011)

Romero, Simon, and Marc Lacey. "Fierce Quake Devastates Haitian Capital." The New York Times. (2010). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/americas/13haiti.html


"Haiti earthquake: history of natural disasters to hit the country." The Telegraph. (Jan 13, 2010). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/6978919/Haiti-earthquake-history-of-natural-disasters-to-hit-the-country.html



"Timeline of Haiti's natural disasters." ChinaDaily. (2010). (accessed November 2011). http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-01/14/content_9316563.htm

War is Bad

In my opinion, war is bad. I'm not saying that it's bad because I dislike violence or because I believe that there should be peace on earth, but because overall, war has proved to be for the most part, a bad thing for us. Through out history, our governments have resorted to wars as away to get what they want, but to what cost? Valuable money from taxpayers. Although we say money can’t buy us happiness, it sure can buy us health, or better said, help us be healthy. With money being used for war, as the war progressed and the government felt a need to prolong the war in order to win, they usually sought out to raise the cost. This in turn rose the percentage of population living under the poverty line, which led to malnutrition issues in families. But all the negatives that are usually cause by the government's need for war, including debt and lowering the economic status of the country, in the future, whether close or far, lead to improvement in living. Of course, that is only once the war has ended. When looking at individual countries and their progress after a war, most of the time, that progress is in such an amount, that if it were to be graphed, it would be highly noticeable. This is the good thing about wars, and post war times, people are brought together in search of a better way of living because war is a terrible time.

War is a terrible time. Although not in all wars, but in many through out history, men (mostly) were drafted and forced into fighting. Since in most families, it’s the men that were in charge of maintaining the family economically well, or as best as possible, the drafting that occurs in wars, such as in the Great War led to women having the chance to step up. This "stepping up" was a great step in women empowerment through knowledge. Its crazy how something as terrible as the Great War can lead to something as productive as the empowerment of women, through means of jobs. Another thing that war can do is can create job opportunities which in the long run helps pay off war debt and like in the United States, can boost the economy. But as we learned in class, while wars may have positives to it, it also has really bad negatives. For the Great War, millions of people from various places got together in a small area and fought one another for long amounts of time. We carry many viruses within us but we don't have a reaction to them since we've lived with them for so long, developing an immunity. This however, does not mean that others whom we meet wont get those viruses, that is exactly what happened in WWI. So all the interaction with people who carried various viruses and diseases got many people sick who later, if they lived through it, would return home and give it to others. So many people die not only because of war itself but also because of the conditions in which soldiers live in while in war.

How Bizarre Time Really Is..

If you really think about it, time is an incredible thing. Time is what makes our lives move. In history, time is different. Ten years can be anything and not important or it can be short lived but incredible. Usually, it is not important and basically, non-existent. But ask an average normal person how they feel about it and they’ll tell you, ten years, a decade, is a very large amount of time. Why is it? Well, I think it is because our lives are relatively short. Most of us try to hold on to everything and do as much as we can and I have come to believe that it is because through the advancements we have made, the speed at which things move along also increases, making time go by faster. But the idea of time is still fascinating and this change in the amount of things accomplished in a certain time frame also increases, as we get more advanced.

In this modern age, as humans, we are all moving at a fast pace. We are always busy. But how does time relate to history and to what we have been reading? Easy…

The Black Death. It was a terrible time, people were dying all over Europe and as time continued, it seemed as if it would never end. The expression forever relates to the feeling of something either highly desired or highly undesired seeming to continue for an extended amount of time, in this case, undesired. Meaning it went by slowly. Much of the world’s known population at that time was lost and all kinds of people were struggling to cope with the after-effects left by the plague. In other words, things were tough all over and life was basically at a halt for most people. Soon, things slowly went back to normal and life sped up again, to it’s previous, if not a little faster, speed. Although the pandemic was not terribly long lasting, the effect and influence it had in our capability to continue improving as a specie made it that much more important. It’s a good example of how things happening in short amounts of time can be highly influential and important.

The Industrial Revolution. It was clearly the moment at which time really began to pick up a faster pace. Humans became more influential to one another, interactions rose, and a day had more activities in it. The development of cities and the increase of population caused a constant need of supplies being provided, sources being used, and of energy circulating. The image that pops into my head when thinking of the revolution is of a petroleum pumper slowly increasing it’s speed, and also, the most commonly seen image, people walking and increasing their speed as their surroundings change. It’s interesting. The first image, the one of the petroleum pumper relates in my head to the symboliscism of earth not having unlimited resources and the second image relates to the so commonly seen sign of STOP.

That leads me to how they both connect to time and speed, literally, how. As our pace increases, is it possible that at one point, everything we know of will come to a sudden stop? Or will it reach a peak and just begin to fall?

Analysing: The Black Death in Europe by Giovanni Boccaccio

To start out, I would like to mention something that I noticed. This is not the author's, Giovanni Boccaccio, original piece, it is a translated version. I think that it would have been better for us to read his original work because we would pick up on key words used by the author to explain a certain something. While this version might be just as good as the original, it isn’t ideal. We have to rely that the translation stays true to the original text and does a good job transmitting us the ideals and emotions, along with mental images that Giovanni Boccaccio would have wanted his readers to experience.

P.A.P.E.R.

From what I understood, the main purpose of this article was to inform the reader about the black plague and it's impact as well as its possible reasons for spreading. The way that it is written, one would not immediately notice the references to religion because while it is not excessively noticeable it is also not non-existent. These references in the text are well woven in. This is because during the time in which the original author lived, religion was something that dominated and was a huge part of people’s everyday lives so it was normal for such references to be included into what was written. We notice such references as soon as we begin to read the article, “thirteen hundred and forty-eight years had already passed after the fruitful incarnation of the Son of God….” There is also a part where he mentions that the plague was so virulent that no medicine or praying/ faith could stop it. So basically, one can tell he is someone who has strong connection to religion. It is also noticeable that he is someone who is part of the high class because he talks about the way that most of the sick were those poor because they did not even have servants to attend them. He also says “ the plight of the lower class, and, perhaps, a large part of the middle class was even more pathetic,” while it could have been true, there were also those who belonged to the high class and fled their cities. The way it is said, suggest that he did not belong to either groups, meaning he was either middle class that did not flee or high class who according to him, had not need to. For the most part, as I read this, I found myself picturing him as someone who could have bee alive during our time because while religion is present, he also makes sure to include that things happened not because of God but because of our decisions and our form of living. It seems to me that the author intended the reader to be someone who did not experience the effect of the black plague, did not see it, or was unaware of it, it is shown by the way that everything black related in very emphasized and explained.

A few of the methods mentioned that were used to avoid getting the plague seem unreasonable to believe now a days but seemed to be very common back them We can also notice that while there were many that believed such methods, there were some parts that Boccaccio himself believed untrue. For example, he mentioned a few things by using “they believed” instead of stating the actions taken as facts. He also omits a few things, although it could be said that technically mentions it, he avoid telling it up front. He goes a few times around the idea of the plague spreading due to the repositioning of people to other plague-free places, and while telling it, he mentions certain groups instead of people in general which makes it as if he is trying to keep that information hidden.

In the other reading on the black plague we did on our text books, the idea that most people relied on both medicine and God to save them was shared with this article and so is the opinion that the poor were the ones who suffered the most and it makes sense because as there was a high increase in amount of doctors, only some of them actually knew what they were doing and those few were out of budget range for the poor which would explain why so many of them died.

Industrialization+time= Modern day Views on the Revolution

“The modern world is still trying to understand the many consequences of the Industrial Revolution on the world as a whole.” For the most part, I have come to gather that many us that form the modern world believe that the Industrial revolution was net positive because while pollution and population reached their highest point many, advancements were made along with discoveries after the beginning of this. I would say that this view that most of our modern day population has is a very unavoidable and understandable view but nonetheless, selfish. This view basically says, sure this industrial revolution brought negatives such as pollution and increase in usage of sources, but look at all that we have accomplished because of it also. We have extended our life expectancy, made amazing medical discoveries, and in one sentence, we have improved our lives as a whole population. I describe this as selfish because it takes the view from something that is made up of us. Our advancements…

While selfish has many definitions, I use it in this post to describe our need for survival and view on it and using it. The industrial revolution is a great example. We say it is something mostly positive because it has helped us. Yes, it has helped us, we have made medical advancements, we have increased our life expectancy, we have developed a more efficient way of living, and we have accomplished great things through the usage of machinery that the industrial revolution brought with it.

Survival. Our views on what is mostly good or mostly bad is based on the chances of survival it gives us. Of course the survival of us as a specie is highly dependant on the state of our surrounding environments so this would automatically be included into what it means to survive, right? Well, as it widely known, and as I have come to learn through readings, the Industrial Revolution did not only bring with it positives and a few here and there bads cause by the positives, it brought with it the power to quickly unbalance things. At the rate in which things improve, the possibility of a disaster increases. We have experienced many of these disasters and the reason we have been able to cope with them is because of technology we have had at the time or developed soon after the disaster. This is good, right? Well, it is good for us but not the ecosystem in which it happens. Disasters are defined as bad things with major impacts and consequences. That is exactly what happens every time there is one. But as long as we survive, it’s all good.

This is the mentality that we have developed as a modern world.

We like commodity and we like living with things ready for us to take/buy. We like this new live that the Industrialization brought to us, but does liking something mean it’s net positive? Or does it just mean we don’t really care about the negatives as long as we get what we want?