Opium Wars - Imperialism in China

According to definition Opium is "a bitter, yellowish-brown, strongly addictive narcotic drug" that is used to cause "dullness or inaction" and is able to soothe the mind and its emotions. The British took advantage of its effects and used it against the Chinese since they had Tea which was something they wanted from them but the Chinese just wouldn't budge when they asked to trade with them. The British began trading the Chinese Opium which soon got them addicted to the drug as its effect says. Soon this led to a major problem for the Chinese Government had ruled that the trading of Opium is illegal and there would be consequences if trading of opium had occurred. Though the ban on Opium was made Chinese citizens still continued on with it. They became so addicted to it that their money/economy deteriorated.

Once their financials became low they decided to end the trade and get rid of the Opium they had under their possession. The British on the other hand did not take this action very kindly for they had decided to rage into this and start a battle. Obviously the British had the upper hand due to technological advantages and a more stable economy than that of the Chinese. Chinese officials made a mistake in their part by actually having tax collectors heavily tax the people which was a bad idea for they had not expected the Brits to attack. Another reason for their loss is due to their low financial stability for they couldn't organize a military let alone one strong enough to take down that of the British. Also they would risk their own regular trade functions by going to war with the British. In the end of the war Great Britain signed a peace treaty with China because one; china didn’t want lose its pride and two; it was obvious of the outcomes of this war.

Film Lesson: "Mountains of the Moon"

In class we watched a movie called "Mountains of The Moon." It was a very interesting movie to see due to all the violence and action and sheer confusion I got when I saw Richard Burton live a spear right to the face. This movie showed a great example of Imperialism because Richard Burton and John Speke were on a mission to find the source of the Nile River. On their way they met natives of Africa and had various fights with some of them. One of the most important scenes in the movie featured Burton showing the Ruler of a village a gun. He found it very interesting and decided to shoot it at someone all of the natives were terrified of the object. They faced other hardships such as the way they were going to the source. The land they walked on was not the best thing to walk on in the heat. One of the most disturbing things that happened was when John Speke had a beetle go into his ear it was a very disturbing and painful scene to watch. Also some of the people that were helping Burton and Speke decided to desert them and take some supplies with them. 

When Speke had claimed he had found the source of the Nile River some problems between him and Burton came up and this led to a trial decide this. In the end Speke ended up taking himself out of the picture by killing himself. Burton had decided to not continue saying his side of the trial for he was in the shadow of John's death. Speke was indeed right when he claimed Lake Victoria, which was soon to be named, was the actual source of the gigantic river known as the Nile. The odd thing about the name of the lake is that why a lake in Africa would be named after a queen from England? Well it’s probably due to the fact that the people, who went out of their way to find and name it, were Europeans even more into detail of English decent. Though it’s in Africa the natives there are too uneducated or even carefree as to even name their territory. Imperialism was basically a system and this movie showed a great example of that. The Europeans came educated the Natives of Africa and taught them a more civilized lifestyle. Overall it was a more industrial move for them.  

This movie was a great way to show the Europeans would dominate over the Natives. This may be a weird way to state this but when Burton survived the spear to the face it was a foreshadowing of how dominant a gun is compared to simple tools made form nature like spears and shields. In a fight between people with spears and people with gun the answer is obvious. The guns are more advanced and therefore will easily take down the person coming at you with a spear. It is also sign of showing how the Europeans wouldn't stop till they got what they wanted, which is both the land and for the people of Africa to live a more courteous and kind natured lifestyle. The part where Speke was showing the Native how to pour tea was an example of this for he was showing him how to do something the right way. The will of Speke and Burton to journey across the Africa was a rough one but in the end after many hardships, fights and emotions their mission was complete into finding the source of the Nile River.

Imperialism Project

This projected on imperialism was used to teach us how imperialism worked and as to why the countries were taken over by the parent country. This project not only taught us about color coding and how important it was to see how far Europe had reached for raw materials but also how many countries had been a part of this. The map we were working on, with our partners, consisted of us pasting items like Gold, Cotton, Silver and etc... Onto the maps and making arrows indicating from country to country as to what actions was going on and which country was going where.

The coloring portion of the project was interesting because we saw Europe go to places like Canada and many more places that I had not known they would go to. This also helped me learn that there are places in Africa I never heard of that Europe took over and it was all because they had really good natural resources. As the picture in this post indicates almost all of Africa was taken over by countries in Europe. France and Britain were two of the biggest players in this Imperialism game as you can see from the picture. Another important thing I also learned from this project that not displayed in the picture is that slaves were also transported around from the Eastern U.S. and Africa during this time. There were several trades routes that we needed to draw. The one I remember was from Britain to China that one, as I learned later on, led to the Opium wars.     

Karl Marx and Communism

Communism is when everyone has the same pay (wealth) and social class. It is where the wealth would be split amongst each other and is derived from the word common. No matter what your occupation is you will still make the same amount as everybody else. 

This may seem unfair to those who work harder and deserve more money but communism tends to be for the people who need the money. This way wealth is equal amongst all people meaning that everyone is on the same level when it comes to their class. There are no more high classed people hogging all the money while all the lower class people are doing all the work. Karl Marx believed that history was a struggle between classes. 

The way things were running at the time was Capitalism which he found really unfair due to the fact that workers would work hard in factories but the owners of the factory would hold most of the money. The owners in this came would be considered the "bad guys" while the hard working people were "good guys." He thought that they should rebel against this system so they can finally be free from the owners of the factories that steal their hard earned money. He had believed communism to be the type of government where the commons or the workers would be in control.

Karl Marx and The Industrial Revolution

Marx disliked the Industrial Revolution, which he had called capitalism. He thought the conditions in the factories in Europe were too rough and dangerous for workers. He believed that instead of the factories should be owned by the workers themselves and not landlords. He thought that people were born into a world where they can't make changes in society. That was a problem. He urged the workers to unite and break free of this hold and change society for themselves and become an individual. He believed that when one was born that there pathway in life was already chosen and one had to break free off all the laws, and religion that bind that person in with the rest of the world.

When he told everyone to unite a new term was given to this movement. It was called communism. Communism derives from the word "common." For everyone in the world should be a separate individual and be the same in each way no matter what gender or age. When capitalism would be taken down by this revolution the money workers made would be equal amongst one another depending on what he did and how much he needed it. In the end his "utopia would be a place where there are no social classes and workers were individuals in society.

Nationalism and the Creation of Italy

Nationalism is basically ones loyalty towards their country/nation also known as patriotism. One way people express nationalism is by having a flag of whichever country they are from in their homes and shows that they are loyal and proud to be from there. Unlike being a loyalist, who has to do with being a loyal to a king you are loyal to a specific place and its people/culture. Another way is by also adapting to a new country or place and trying to fit in with what goes on in that region. For example a lot of people come to America. Once they get here, majority of the people are not going to live the same life as they did before. Some even fit in well enough with real Americans that their habits and of showcasing that they are proud to live in America become identical. 

I don't display many cases of nationalism even though I live in America. It’s not like that I am not proud to live but why do I have to choose one over another if there are many more other countries in the world. I do follow some of American traditions by watching the fire works on the fourth of July which is one of the most important dates in American history. I also have multiple flags on the United States and have them placed in various places in my house. I also carry money as in dollars (since that is our currency); know the Pledge of Allegiance and majority of the words to the Star Spangled Banner. Most importantly I write, read, and speak English as my major language almost everywhere. Though I was not organically born here I still don't know my own native language best which a requirement is not really for me. 

If it wasn't for nationalism Italy wouldn't be what it is now. Before, after 1815, majority of Italy was ruled by Austria. But as time went on, from 1815-1848, Italy grew tired of being ruled over by another country. Two leaders were able to help them get what they wanted and that is to be a separate country and be one of their own. Even though in the end Italy got what it wanted they had many problems after the multiple battles and efforts it had underwent, they came out of it with economic and political problems. A lot of the problems were amongst themselves such as the North vs. the South.  

Simon Bolivar and Latin American Revolutions

Simon Bolivar was born in Caracas, Venezuela. This is kind of weird because the country named after him, Bolivia, is smaller than Venezuela where he originated from. He was born on July 24 in 1783. Bolivar was a well educated person due to his excellent teachers. Thanks to them he learned facts about the enlightenment, which may have influenced his decisions made in the future. His life wasn't all too great at first since he lost both parents while he was still young, and had to reside with his uncle until he was 15. He was sent to continue his studies in Spain by his uncle. 

When he was 19 he got married but this marriage did not last long for his wife had died only after a year of their marriage upon his return back to Venezuela. He soon returned to Europe but this time his purpose was for travel especially in Italy and France. He used this time to study people like John Locke and even Napoleon. On the way back to Venezuela he stopped in the U.S.A. There he learned that they had just gained their independence from Great Britain. When he finally got back home he decided that it was South America’s turn to depart from Spain and gain their form of independence. He was going to lead them through it as well. 

This is where the title "the George Washington of South America" began. In 1810 he seized Caracas and had to recapture it after he had come back from Great Britain for help. When he returned empty handed from there Bolivar had command of patriot army. First they defeated the Spaniards from Caracas but soon after they forced him to go back to modern day Colombia. In 1814 he got control of Bogota with help from the Colombian armies. Though they had win their many other defeats to come due to lack of food and supplies. 

Bolivar had moved onto Jamaica. When he had reached Haiti, Bolivar was able to assemble another force this time to go to Venezuela and this time they had captured control of Angostura. In 1819, after ridding Colombia of Spaniards, Colombia had been liberated. On December 17 1819 he became president of the congress that had organized Colombia. Soon he took down the Spaniards that were in Venezuela in June 24 1821. Soon Ecuador became under his control rather than Spain’s. He soon became a dictator of Peru after meeting with another Liberator, Antonio Jose de Sucre. Together they led the final battles fought in this revolution and it had finally ended on December 9, 1824. The upper portion of Peru is now what is called Bolivia after what he had done for South America he deserved to have a country named after him.

John Locke and "The Enlightenment"

The truth Thomas Jefferson was talking about, in the declaration of independence, was the fact that "all men are created equal." This phrase states that everybody is not created to be treated unfairly than others. Like all others they should be receiving similar or even same "rights" such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the three things that every individual should have and even though I mention them as an individual’s but together they form the whole group.

According to the declaration of independence the government comes from the people. They decide who should lead it, they decide whether if the choices that are made are good ones. One very important line from the document is that if "Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." Basically it means if the leader or whoever is in charge of the power, becomes a tyrant or too power hungry then the people have the right to remove him from the position and or make changes to the system. They have the right to form their own form of government to whatever they please to their own "safety and happiness".

You can immediately see the changes in the structure and system in government than from the older ones like monarchy. These ideas were developed and formed by John Locke who gathered bits and pieces of ideas for the perfect government from enlightenment thinkers. Those ideas soon formed into what we have now and that is known as a democracy where the people have power and a say in what goes on in their own country/nation.

Copernicus and the trial of Galileo

When you think of the solar system, there are two important theories you should know about, heliocentric and geocentric. When you break the words down they go to their Greek meanings. In Heliocentric: Helios is the Greek word for sun. While in Geocentric; Geo is Greek for earth. In both words: Centric comes from Kentron which is the Greek word for center. Geocentric means that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Heliocentric is a little different than that. It states that the sun is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it instead of the earth. Obviously both of these theories are not true. The Geocentric theory may have come first but it is not the correct one. 
When you think of the solar system, there are two important theories you should know about, heliocentric and geocentric. When you break the words down they go to their Greek meanings. In Heliocentric: Helios is the Greek word for sun. While in Geocentric; Geo is Greek for earth. In both words: Centric comes from Kentron which is the Greek word for center. Geocentric means that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Heliocentric is a little different than that. It states that the sun is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it instead of the earth. Obviously both of these theories are not true. The Geocentric theory may have come first but it is not the correct one. 

During the scientific revolution advances in scientific and mathematic ideas were taken to different levels. Great advances such as views towards the universe were challenged. One of them was that everything does not revolve around the earth. In the 16th century Copernicus had developed a model of the heliocentric system. Though it did come up till consideration until 1,800 years later, Johannes Kepler was able to work with and add on to Copernicus's theory.  

Galileo Galilei was a famous astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, and a physicist. He played a very important role in the scientific revolution. In 1630 Galileo published the "Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World." He had discussed the heliocentric theory and denied the geocentric theory. Unlike the geocentric theory Galileo was able to support heliocentrism with acknowledgeable facts and evidence from his studies of physics and his findings through his telescope that was placed in his garden. Galileo was surprised to find that his theory had more skeptics than believers. 

For his actions, Galileo was taken to trial, in 1633, by the Catholic Church because they on the other hand did not follow the same beliefs and ideas as Galileo did. They strictly followed the teachings of philosophers like Aristotle, Ptolemy and things taught within the church. Basically the church saw him as a threat to the public and if people found out that he was actually right then many people would challenge the church as well. 

After the trial Galileo was forced to renounce his beliefs in heliocentrism and his book was banned by the Catholic Church. His original verdict was to be jailed for life in prison but was changed the day after to house arrest which led up to his death. Only after his death in the 1990's did the Church lift the ban that was placed on his book "Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World."

Scientific Revolution: The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method is a reliable way to question or challenge an idea or even come up with something then test it. People couldn't challenge an idea if they didn't know what it was, considering the fact that ideas were argued rather than tested back then which is not only outrageous by the fact that people believed it, but also people who came up with the theory didn’t even bother checking to see if they were right. One reason why is because they wouldn’t know what to do or how to go about finding out answers. Basically everyone just went with the first thing they heard. 
This method is very organized and goes step by step. Each step is very crucial. You start off with observations. Basically all you do is observing something and if you find something that looks interesting then you can start to form questions about it. The next step is the hypothesis 

A hypothesis is your opinion/prediction/educated guess on what you think is going to happen. Once you have come up with a hypothesis you perform experiments. 

By doing these tests you get closer to answering your questions and proving that your hypothesis is right. These tests have very detailed steps known as the procedure. They would also contain multiple trials because you can't base your decision on just one try. 

If anything turns out to be false then you have to go back to the hypothesis stage and start over from there. When the tests are finally done and you have results proving your theory right, then you can come up with a conclusion stating it and call your idea a theory from then on. 

It may seem like a really long process but in the end it’s all worthwhile knowing that you can tell people something they know is right. Also if some criticize you, instead of just arguing you can show them the facts and results to make believers out of them as well.

An example of an experiment that utilizes the scientific method is to see if lack of sleep affects a person’s mood. First off you would form your hypothesis which in this case would be mine and I would say that "I think a person would have be more ill-tempered and vinegary (cranky) if they have lack of sleep." Then I would have to move onto my tests by getting people willing to be a part of the experiment.

Then I would have to divide the people in half and have a control group and experimental group. The people not getting any sleep would be the experimental while the people who are would be the control. In each trial I would have to record the difference between the experimental and control groups behaviors and actions. In the end when I have completed all my trials I would gather all my results and come up with a conclusion stating everything that has happened.

There I will have proof stating my hypothesis right or wrong. I can't say which right now because I have not done this experiment, but form prior knowledge of the human mind I can say that my hypothesis is correct.  

Evolution vs. Creation

The theory of evolution basically deals mostly with nature and sciences. I'm not just saying it has to do with nature just because of Natural Selection but because it takes up majority of what Charles Darwin was trying to prove in his theory of evolution. His theory suggests that all people and animals have a common ancestor. That ancestor could have walked/swam etc...On earth millions of years ago and through natural selection (survival of the fittest) the organism developed more into the years and formed more complex organisms. Basically put, all of the advanced organisms are able to survive under the conditions while the weak are at a disadvantage as they start to die out. Passing on traits to the next generation is very crucial or nature itself will take you out. The one thing about this theory that makes it so unique and draws attention to people is that we humans/homo-sapiens/people have common ancestors to animals, mostly traits identical to primates. We developed from cavemen as they grew in intelligence. One question that people ask to skepticize this theory is "how was the first organism created?" That one question alone is able to shoot down majority of the ideas that Darwin within his theory. That question leads me into the theory of creation.

The theory of creation deals with religious beliefs. These religious beliefs all begin by saying that some kind of divine force/deity/god(s) created all life, hence the name "theory of creation." According to the book of genesis it simply states that god created the first man, Adam, and takes one of his ribs and forms the first woman, Eve. People that favor the theory of evolution critique this theory by saying that you can't prove that god created life neither can you test it. The only proof that is available is found in the bible. Throughout the years people have become more sophisticated, thus people gained the courage to challenge this theory and try to prove it wrong with evolution. Overall both theories are able to question each other and have reasons to back them up with. I know I may seem more lenient to evolution but actually evolution has many flaws that are found within while creation all begins with the idea of god creating life.

In my opinion I stick in between both theories. The reason for my decision is because both of these theories are not perfect and have many flaws some yet to be uncovered. I do give a little nod towards evolution because of it natural selection and passing traits on to the next generation idea. Even though it says that humans developed from primates it still defies the idea of god creating two human beings and letting it start from there. I have to agree with people who pointed out this major flaw in the theory of evolution "what created the first living organism?" Like I mentioned before, this one question alone can eliminate many ideas within evolution. In my mind I still believe that something had to create it and by doing so evolution just seems less and less believable. I also wondered if there was a way both of these theories could be right and that the flaws in both of them could be found in one another. I doubt that a lot or any people would agree with me on that thought but this is how I view life.