I must object to the prospect of inviting a historical figure to attend college with me. For one, this person would obviously be many years older than I am, and so they would not be in the college in the first place. For two, if they were a professor, they would have countless other students to take care of and I could not form a meaningful relationship with them. For three, if I were to somehow pull this person from the timeline into present-day, not only would it mess up the timeline by keeping them from being in a place to do something important that they will inevitably end up doing, but it will also attract the media, and people will suddenly be swarming around me, asking me to revive all sorts of people. Death would become a slap on the wrist (until I died, that is) and I would be drowned by people who I don't know, not to mention that there would suddenly be over-population and the world's resources would be gone faster than we can use them.
If you hadn't gathered, I would not like to have a historical figure be in the same college that I will someday go to, unless said historical figure is alive today and I could meet him or her without the above listed reasons happening. There are no historical figures that present enough interest to me to actually want to bring them to college with me. I could say I'd bring the people in charge of planning the bombing of Dresden, and say that it's because I want to know why they did it, but not only would I be lying, I'd have no purpose for them once I had somehow managed to get the information out of them. I could also say that I wanted to bring some ex-president with me, but for one I don't know which one I'd bring, and for two, I don't have any reason to want to bring them.
My final reason for not wanting to bring someone from the past is because of just that- they're from the past. The things they did are in the past. The things they would talk about would be from the past. As much as it would be fun to have one as a history teacher, their knowledge would only extend up to the point in which they died, and... well, how can I put this without being rude? The past is in the past. Sure, we can look back on it to see where we made mistakes, but I'd rather not have whatever figure I had with me in college constantly talking about the successes he or she had while in some now-famous event. I'd like to just read or hear about a past event, and move on to the present and the future.
The past is in the past. Let's keep it that way so we don't have to repeat history.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Literary Reflection...
When college comes around, it is natural that one would want company in their travels around the world, country, city, wherever they happen to be attending college. Upon being asked this question, I considered a few options of what character from the books we have read in class I would take with me on my journey to the land of the college student. I could pick Billy Pilgrim and ask him to give me the answers for future tests so I could easily pass my College classes. I could pick Jim Casy and have him distract people by talking so I'd have time to take all my notes. But, in the end, there was only one person that I could pick with all my heart... and she wasn't even a person.
Princess.
You see, nothing beats the company and companionship of a canine companion. (too many c's.) I decided to pick Princess, the dog that the German Soldiers in Slaughterhouse Five borrowed from the farmer, because I'd have something to look forward to when I came back from my classes each day, and someone to keep me company when whatever roommate I had (if I had one) was out of the dorm (since, knowing me, I'd never leave it). I pick Princess over other dogs in the series, because she is young, adorable and sweet, and I imagine her as a cute doggie who is cuddle-able and well behaved, which means she would be able to stay in the dorms as my pet and companion. I believe she's well behaved because she obeyed the command of the Germans who borrowed her without complaint, whereas some dogs don't obey orders, even from the people who own them. Princess would make a great companion during my college days, so long as she doesn't poop in the dorm room. ;D
Princess.
You see, nothing beats the company and companionship of a canine companion. (too many c's.) I decided to pick Princess, the dog that the German Soldiers in Slaughterhouse Five borrowed from the farmer, because I'd have something to look forward to when I came back from my classes each day, and someone to keep me company when whatever roommate I had (if I had one) was out of the dorm (since, knowing me, I'd never leave it). I pick Princess over other dogs in the series, because she is young, adorable and sweet, and I imagine her as a cute doggie who is cuddle-able and well behaved, which means she would be able to stay in the dorms as my pet and companion. I believe she's well behaved because she obeyed the command of the Germans who borrowed her without complaint, whereas some dogs don't obey orders, even from the people who own them. Princess would make a great companion during my college days, so long as she doesn't poop in the dorm room. ;D
Friday, May 14, 2010
Post Trial Reflection
According to the prosecution, Arizona was violating the constitution, specifically the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Two of the founding fathers were called up (James Madison and John Adams), to explain exactly what they meant in the amendments, and a representative of Arizona was called up to explain why he (she) thought that the bills Arizona had passed were wrong.
According to the defense, Arizona was not in the wrong, but only doing their job to keep their citizens safe from the illegal aliens. They called forth the Arizona Governor, a police chief (if I am not mistaken...), and a policeman who had been shot by two 'illegal' immigrants. They pointed out that the country was not doing their job and they only wished to help it keep the people who shouldn't be there out.
I think the most significant pieces of evidence came when the prosecution cross-examined the defense's witnesses- they basically got them to contradict everything that the defense had said up to that point in time. They also got them to admit they were wrong on many occasions - not directly, but still - and if you admit that you're wrong, that seriously ruins your credibility as a lawmaker or police enforcer and so on.
The most significant argument was the prosecution hammering into place that the bill(s) were against the constitution and that states did NOT have the power that the defense was saying they should have if the country wasn't doing its job.
The verdict was guilty - which I fully support. I was on the jury, after all... anyway, it's my own personal opinion, but I did my best not to let that affect my choice and I made it based on the evidence both sides had presented, and the organization, or lack thereof, that they had. I just really felt like the prosecution did an amazing job of hammering their point into place.
-
I think I deserve a 35 out of 50 points because being a juror is not very hard. I just watched (which I didn't fully do...) and helped make the final decision. I was good at the deliberations because I felt like I had a real opinion and say in the matter and it was easy for me to get my pint across, even if I did stumble across my words a bit I knew what I was trying to say. I could have done better at actually watching the trial by drawing less... I'm not very good at maintaining focus and I was constantly drawing throughout the trial, which I feel like was a bad idea (but I did get the gist of what was going on - I just feel like I should have taken more notes on names and positions and such is all).
According to the defense, Arizona was not in the wrong, but only doing their job to keep their citizens safe from the illegal aliens. They called forth the Arizona Governor, a police chief (if I am not mistaken...), and a policeman who had been shot by two 'illegal' immigrants. They pointed out that the country was not doing their job and they only wished to help it keep the people who shouldn't be there out.
I think the most significant pieces of evidence came when the prosecution cross-examined the defense's witnesses- they basically got them to contradict everything that the defense had said up to that point in time. They also got them to admit they were wrong on many occasions - not directly, but still - and if you admit that you're wrong, that seriously ruins your credibility as a lawmaker or police enforcer and so on.
The most significant argument was the prosecution hammering into place that the bill(s) were against the constitution and that states did NOT have the power that the defense was saying they should have if the country wasn't doing its job.
The verdict was guilty - which I fully support. I was on the jury, after all... anyway, it's my own personal opinion, but I did my best not to let that affect my choice and I made it based on the evidence both sides had presented, and the organization, or lack thereof, that they had. I just really felt like the prosecution did an amazing job of hammering their point into place.
-
I think I deserve a 35 out of 50 points because being a juror is not very hard. I just watched (which I didn't fully do...) and helped make the final decision. I was good at the deliberations because I felt like I had a real opinion and say in the matter and it was easy for me to get my pint across, even if I did stumble across my words a bit I knew what I was trying to say. I could have done better at actually watching the trial by drawing less... I'm not very good at maintaining focus and I was constantly drawing throughout the trial, which I feel like was a bad idea (but I did get the gist of what was going on - I just feel like I should have taken more notes on names and positions and such is all).
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
WW2 Letter Info
I am probably going to pick a position as a working woman in America, simply because it will be easier for me to put myself in the position of a woman - however, I might end up picking a soldier because it might be fun to get into a soldier's shoes to see what they would think.
As a woman I would look up information on working conditions and probably look into a specific factory that I would be working at.
As a soldier, I think I'd pick a specific battle to be in - maybe even be a soldier on the opposing side?
As for the letter itself, I'd like to handwrite it as a semi-illiterate person, so it'd have spelling errors and backwards letters and stuff, but the message would still get across... It might be fun.
As a woman I would look up information on working conditions and probably look into a specific factory that I would be working at.
As a soldier, I think I'd pick a specific battle to be in - maybe even be a soldier on the opposing side?
As for the letter itself, I'd like to handwrite it as a semi-illiterate person, so it'd have spelling errors and backwards letters and stuff, but the message would still get across... It might be fun.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Honors History Blog #2
The wars held importance in the sense that they were so devastating that it's unlikely that anyone would ever want to be involved in such a large-scale conflict again. They also held importance in the sense that they helped countries do a lot of developing- quite a bit of technology developed during that time is still used today. Weaponry, planes... heck, even nuclear weaponry came about because of the second world war. Not that it wouldn't have if it weren't for the war, but during times of crisis people become desperate and tend to work faster than they normally do on such things so that it can help them overcome said crisis.
The wars were incredible in the sense that they brought about development that would not have ordinarily been brought around. Yes, nuclear fusion/fission did exist before World War 2... but that was in the sun and not in a way that we could harness. If it hadn't been for the need to build nuclear weaponry then we would have never even considered that it could be harnessed, and we would probably still be using some ridiculous form of power like hamsters on treadmills. A lot of the weaponry that we use today appeared in the second world war as well - I'm probably wrong on this, but if I remember right, I heard that AK-47s were invented during WW2, and a lot of aerial technology came to be in the second world war. Plus, a lot of planes that could carry more than just one person (a person plus a bomb/weapon) started to be invented in the first world war - before that, soaring with the birds was something that could only be done for a few moments (just ask the Wright brothers). They also created a lot of alliances and a system of checks and balances on other countries that had the possibility to go renegade on us all. (Not that they would. We have nukes.)
The wars were incredible in the sense that they brought about development that would not have ordinarily been brought around. Yes, nuclear fusion/fission did exist before World War 2... but that was in the sun and not in a way that we could harness. If it hadn't been for the need to build nuclear weaponry then we would have never even considered that it could be harnessed, and we would probably still be using some ridiculous form of power like hamsters on treadmills. A lot of the weaponry that we use today appeared in the second world war as well - I'm probably wrong on this, but if I remember right, I heard that AK-47s were invented during WW2, and a lot of aerial technology came to be in the second world war. Plus, a lot of planes that could carry more than just one person (a person plus a bomb/weapon) started to be invented in the first world war - before that, soaring with the birds was something that could only be done for a few moments (just ask the Wright brothers). They also created a lot of alliances and a system of checks and balances on other countries that had the possibility to go renegade on us all. (Not that they would. We have nukes.)
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Blog #15
Instead of picking something off of the provided list that Randy has given us, I decided to choose something that I was particularly interested in - that is, the combat strategies and what sort of information and misinformation was used to win the war.
During the war, both sides had many different battle strategies. Due to my nature as a writer, and my recent fascination with the kinds of tactics that are used in war-like battles, I wish to know all that I can about the combat tactics in the war and what kinds of things were done to give the other side misinformation. I recall reading somewhere that American and Brittish troops had spies working for them, sometimes even double-agents, who would talk about what the German forces were up to, and deliver information about squadrons that were nonexistent. I also recall reading that America and Brittan broadcasted radio messages that purposely spoke about plans, attacks and squadrons that did not exist to falsely prepare their enemies for an attack that was not coming and distract them from the real attack. I'd like to know a lot more about these strategies and these spies and the way that the battles were fought during the war; which I could probably do by researching accounts of soldiers on the battlefield or looking up battleplans. And, chances are, a lot of our combat strategies are the same as they were back then.
During the war, both sides had many different battle strategies. Due to my nature as a writer, and my recent fascination with the kinds of tactics that are used in war-like battles, I wish to know all that I can about the combat tactics in the war and what kinds of things were done to give the other side misinformation. I recall reading somewhere that American and Brittish troops had spies working for them, sometimes even double-agents, who would talk about what the German forces were up to, and deliver information about squadrons that were nonexistent. I also recall reading that America and Brittan broadcasted radio messages that purposely spoke about plans, attacks and squadrons that did not exist to falsely prepare their enemies for an attack that was not coming and distract them from the real attack. I'd like to know a lot more about these strategies and these spies and the way that the battles were fought during the war; which I could probably do by researching accounts of soldiers on the battlefield or looking up battleplans. And, chances are, a lot of our combat strategies are the same as they were back then.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Blog #14
1. What are the most interesting aspects of World Wars 1 and 2?
In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of World Wars 1 and 2 is that they were so close together. The world had just been devastated by the first World War (or, as it was known then, The Great War), and yet the instability caused by it provoked the second one to erupt and begin. I also find it interesting that the wars both had similar causes - that is, instability among alliances and countries, as well as chaos involved in the relationships between them, albeit for different reasons for either war.
2. What do you hope to learn about these wars?
Well, to be completely honest, I don't really hope to learn much, since I learned a lot about World Wars 1 and 2 last year in Lori's class. Something I would like to learn, though, are the kinds of tactics that were used on the battlefields, and how things like spy operations were done, and what sort of honor soldiers had regarding the other side. (I heard somewhere that soldiers would give people on the other side funerals and things out of respect.)
3. How/Why are these wars important today? How do they impact and/or inform our world today?
The wars held importance in the sense that they were so devastating that it's unlikely that anyone would ever want to be involved in such a large-scale conflict again. They also held importance in the sense that they helped countries do a lot of developing- quite a bit of technology developed during that time is still used today. Weaponry, planes... heck, even nuclear weaponry came about because of the second world war. Not that it wouldn't have if it weren't for the war, but during times of crisis people become desperate and tend to work faster than they normally do on such things so that it can help them overcome said crisis.
In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of World Wars 1 and 2 is that they were so close together. The world had just been devastated by the first World War (or, as it was known then, The Great War), and yet the instability caused by it provoked the second one to erupt and begin. I also find it interesting that the wars both had similar causes - that is, instability among alliances and countries, as well as chaos involved in the relationships between them, albeit for different reasons for either war.
2. What do you hope to learn about these wars?
Well, to be completely honest, I don't really hope to learn much, since I learned a lot about World Wars 1 and 2 last year in Lori's class. Something I would like to learn, though, are the kinds of tactics that were used on the battlefields, and how things like spy operations were done, and what sort of honor soldiers had regarding the other side. (I heard somewhere that soldiers would give people on the other side funerals and things out of respect.)
3. How/Why are these wars important today? How do they impact and/or inform our world today?
The wars held importance in the sense that they were so devastating that it's unlikely that anyone would ever want to be involved in such a large-scale conflict again. They also held importance in the sense that they helped countries do a lot of developing- quite a bit of technology developed during that time is still used today. Weaponry, planes... heck, even nuclear weaponry came about because of the second world war. Not that it wouldn't have if it weren't for the war, but during times of crisis people become desperate and tend to work faster than they normally do on such things so that it can help them overcome said crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)