Jamestown DBQ

110 men originally settled in Early Jamestown, but by the end of the first winter only 40 survived. The English came to America in 1607 to be the first permanent English settlement in the New World.  They settled in a place that they soon called Jamestown, Virginia and the joint stock company called The Virginia Company, helped pay for the settlement.  All of the first settlers were men and by then end of the first six months, 80 percent of them died.  Early Jamestown was a colony of English settlers in America that lasted from the years 1607-1611.  Something that puzzles historians is how many colonists died in Early Jamestown.  Many colonists in Early Jamestown died because of environmental issues, their relationships with Native Americans and their lack of settler skills.  

The first reason why so many settlers in Early Jamestown died was because of the environmental issues.  Brackish water was the only water made available to the settlers in Jamestown.  Brackish water contains salt and is not sanitary to drink.  You could drink and drink this water but never get hydrated from it.  Diseases and bad health resulted from brackish water (Document A).  There was a drought at the start of the English settlement in 1607 that lasted until 1612.  No rain during the drought equals no growing crops which causes low food supply for the men.  This low food supply lead to starvation (Document B).  The brackish water and the severe drought are environmental issues that caused many deaths in Jamestown.

Another reason why so many settlers died in Early Jamestown was because of their lack of settler skills.  Out of the 110 original settlers, only 82 had known occupations.  And out of the 120 men after the first resupply in January 1608 only 69 had known occupations.  Some of the jobs men had weren’t not necessary for life, like a wig maker, but there were no jobs such as apothecaries, surgeons or gunsmith, which were useful occupations.  If someone got sick or hurt, no one would be able to help them.  Or if someones weapon broke, no one could fix it for when they got into fights.  But by 1608 they finally got one gunsmith, one surgeon and two apothecaries (Document C).  The lack of occupations men had in Jamestown resulted in no one caring for the sick and injured, or fixing weapons, which are the necessary jobs for life so this resulted in many deaths.

The last reason why so many people in Early Jamestown died was because of their poor relationship with the Native Americans.  In 1609 around 37 men sailed up the Chesapeake Bay to trade for corn with the Patawomeke Indians.  The men were going to trade grain for some corn but when the Indians refused, the English forced them by cutting off the heads of two Indians (Document D).  Between the years 1607 and 1610, the maximum population was 381 but by the 1610 the end population was only 90.  The deaths and new arrivals of men are due to many things like diseases and environmental issues but the Indians killed hundreds of the men.  This bad relationship between the English settlement and the Indians never got better but actually got progressively worse (Document E).  Due to the bad relationship between the Native Americans and the English resulted in many deaths over the years and that’s why so many colonists in Early Jamestown died.

Due to environmental issues, poor relationships with Native Americans and lack of occupations that are essential for a community, many colonists in Early Jamestown died.  When the drought occurred, crops couldn't thrive as much which lead to less food, starvation and death.  Since there were no doctor type jobs for almost a year, there was noone to help the sick or injured, which also lead to death.  Lastly, with all the fights the English got into with the Native Americans because of the bad relationships, deaths were very common.  It’s important to study about Early Jamestown and analyze facts about it so new communities can learn how to build a good foundation with food, jobs and a community relationship.

Works Cited:

Document A- Dennis B. Blanton, “Jamestown’s Environment,” Center for Archaeological Research, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, 2000.

Document B- N/A, “The lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts,” Science, April 24, 1998

Document C- John Smith, “The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, Book III 1624

Document D- Ivor Noel Hume, “The Virginia Adventure, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994

Document E- J. Frederick Fausz, “An Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides: England’s First Indian War, 1609-1614,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, January 1990

What Really Happened with Atahualpa and the Bible?

Atahualpa was the last Inca king.  He was very popular among his army, but he didn’t rule for long.  In class the questions we were asked were "What really happened when Atahualpa was presented with the Bible by the Spanish?"  "And why do sources tell different versions of the story?" In class, to prepare for the findings of these questions, we read passages from a textbook and two different documents, all written by different authors.  In groups, we then acted out three scenes, and then we had a discussion about the similarities and differences between the scenes.  The textbook source had a different take on what happened with Atahualpa and the Bible. but the two documents were both alike.

The textbook source said that Atahualpa was presented with the Bible from a Spanish friar and when he received it, not knowing what to do, held it to his ear. He was given the book to learn Christianity so he could accept the religion, but when he heard nothing from the book when it was put to his ear, he threw it to the ground.  It says, “Atahualpa held the book to his ear and listened to it. When the book didn’t speak, he threw it on the ground.”  The Spaniards, seeing this act of throwing the Bible to the ground, used this to attack Atahualpa.  The two documents, by Francisco de Xeres and Pedro Pizarro in the mid 1500’s are very similar.  They both state how a Spanish friar, Father Friar Vicente, came to Atahualpa and persuaded him to learn the teachings of Christianity and convert to Christianity.  In document A, it says, “Atahualpa did not know how to open it (the book)” and in document B, it says, “When he had it in his hands he did not know how to open it, and he threw it upon the ground.”  After he threw it on the ground, document A says, “The priest told Francisco Pizarro what had passed between for storing

him and Atahualpa, and that he had thrown the Scriptures to the ground.” and document B says, “The priest returned and related all to Pizarro”.  The priest told Pizarro who then signaled to Spanish troops to attack.  The Indians were taken off guard by this and were killed by the Spanish.  Sources tell different versions of the stories depending on whether they witnessed it or whether they read before they wrote the story or if they have different beliefs.  For example, the author of the textbook might have been on the side of the Spanish, and wanting to make Atahualpa look weak, wrote that he held the Bible up to his ear to listen to it.  Also, the authors of the documents were a Spanish conquistador and a cousin of a Spanish conquistador so they wrote the story based on their beliefs of being Spanish.

I learned about about the importance of knowing the perspective and bias of each source in history.  I learned that depending on who’s writing the story, there will be different views on what really happened.  In this event, there are two different takes on what really happened with Atahualpa and the Bible because there are three different authors with three different perspectives on the event.  The most trustworthiness documents you can read are from authors with no opinion towards events, and if their religion doesn’t interfere with the topic, they can’t be biased towards someone or some event when writing about it.  So, when reading a document from a historical event, make sure you know who the author is and what his background is before you use it as a source.

Cash Crops for a "Great Dying"?

The Columbian Exchange is the exchange of disease, ideas, food crops, population, (people and animals) and cultures between the New World and the Old World after the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492.  It began after Columbus sailed across the ocean and discovered new pieces of land that would soon be named North America and South America.  Columbus brought back to Spain gold and spices, as well as Native Americans, to show the King and Queen of Spain that his discovery of land was rich and the men there would be easy to conquer.  As a result, Europeans started making their way over to the Americans and soon there became a trade route between the Old and New World known as the Columbian Exchange.  The Old World consists of Europe, Asia and Africa and the New World consists of North America, South America, Central America and the Caribbean.  The mutual trades between the Old and New World were knowledge, food, flowers/plants and people, but extra things the Old World gave to the New World were animals and diseases.  The animals helped the natives in the Americas, but the diseases not so much.  The New World got crops from the Old World that would help benefit them, and the Old World got diseases that they would suffer from.

A reason why the Columbian Exchange is sometimes called the “Unequal Exchange” is because the New World benefited a lot more the the Old World.  The New World got cash crops from the Columbian Exchange.  Cash crops are crops that are in high demand, and people will pay a lot of money for certain crops, such as sugar and tobacco.  Cash crops are produced for their value rather than for their use by the grower and go to direct sale.  The New World gained wealth and power while the old World suffered from the diseases the Europeans brought over when they traded.  Another benefit the New World got was slaves to work for them on their fields when the Old and New World traded.  This was known as the Atlantic Slave Trade.  Slavery had existed before this in the New world with Europeans captured in war, and it was also practiced in Africa among different tribes, but this was the first of trading across ocean for people to serve as slaves, and it wasn't an option.  The New World benefited a lot more from the Columbian Exchange than the Old World, and that’s why it’s also known as the “Unequal Exchange”.

The “Unequal Exchange” between the New World and the Old World made the New World suffer a lot more than the Old World.  Something that the Old World brought over to the New World were fatal diseases that the natives in the New World weren’t immune to.  These diseases had a very large impact on the population because many people got diseases and died.  And if you tried to help someone who was sick, you eventually also got sick.  There were not enough people to work in the fields and the food supply decreased.  It’s said that before the Europeans came over, the New World’s population in the Americas was larger than the Old World’s.  They had densely populated villages surrounded by wooden fences for a system of defense, but once the Europeans came over with diseases, everything came to a dead stop.  Typical Native American societies lost about 90% of their population after Columbus’s expeditions and the Europeans coming over to the New World.  This major decrease in population is known as the “Great Dying” because a lot of the population died from diseases.  This is why the New World suffered more than the Old World and why the Columbian Exchange is also known as the “Unequal Exchange”.

The Columbian Exchange between the New World and the Old World was also referred to as the “Unequal Exchange” because the New World benefited more and the Old World suffered more.  The New World benefited because they traded for crops called cash crops which were highly priced and from which people got wealthy. The New World suffered because of the diseases Europeans brought over that the Natives weren’t immune to, so many people died and the population decreased drastically.  Native American societies lost 90% of their population- this is called the “Great Dying”.  If the exchange was unequal between the Natives and the Europeans, why did people of the New World still make trades with the Old World?

The Real Columbus

Everyone knows Christopher Columbus as the brilliant man who founded our beautiful country, America.  But how well do we really know Colombus?  The real Christopher Columbus started out as a man born in a sea town in Italy.  He was a very smart person who could navigate impressingly well.  When he became older he wanted to sail across the world to find new land on other sides of the world.  He wanted to find a country called India so he made his proposal to Portugal, who negated it.  His second proposal was to Spain, who ended up sponsoring his voyage.  He set out on three modern ships- Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria- to sail across the world to India.  Columbus arrived in “India” (really America) and saw that people were already on the land.  He got spices and some gold from these Indians, so thinking that this place was rich, he brought the souvenirs, along with some Native Americans, back to Spain to show the King and Queen how easily the Native Americans could be overpowered and subjugated. Columbus then decided to go back again, but this time when he got there the settlement was destroyed and many men were dead.  Due to this, Columbus then killed many Native Americans because he was mad his settlement was destroyed.  He mismanaged his voyages, so he was arrested and put into jail back in Spain.  Christopher Columbus died thinking he founded India, but it was really America, a whole separate continent.  Christopher Columbus’s true legacy is that he really founded America, but he was extremely harsh to the Native Americans, he took some to Spain as slaves, and he was arrested for abusing his privileges.  Some people might have negative opinions towards Columbus, while others might have positive ones.

The second monday of every October we celebrate the holiday known as Columbus Day, which honors Christopher Columbus’s arrival in America on October 12th.  Most kids like the holiday because they get Monday off from school, making it a long weekend from Friday after school to Monday night.   Most kids don’t do anything that day in remembrance of Columbus, so some say it’s a waste of a day that could be put towards getting out earlier for the summer.  But if Christopher Columbus arrived in India like he had planned rather than in America, it could’ve taken hundreds of years before anyone ever founded our land. So people should really give credit to Columbus even if he thought it was India the whole time.  If it wasn’t for him, others wouldn’t have also travelled to America.  A great population doesn’t know Columbus’s true legacy and how he treated the Native Americans by killing and enslaving them.  After hearing about that, many people will get negative opinions about Columbus, but they have to remember America might not be like it is today without Columbus making it under control of Spain.  The United States should continue to celebrate Columbus Day in his name and his discovering of America.  And even if people have a negative view of him, it’s still a day off from school, and it’s on a Monday.

The Church or the Scientists?

     The Scientific Revolution was a great change away from old ways to new one in favor of science and scientific discoveries.  New inventions were created, scientists were coming up with theories and people began to question the teachings of the church.  The scientific method was found, and it changed the way people searched for answers because now they tried to prove their theory's themselves, instead of looking to the church for answers.  A new scientific method was astronomy, the branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space and the physical universe as a whole.  Scientists like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei studied the universe and began to question the church.  Copernicus discovered that the sun was the center of the universe, and that earth was one of the few planets that revolved around the sun, which was the opposite of what everyone was being taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church taught that that everything revolved around Earth because God created Earth first and therefore everything else revolved around the center of Earth.  Scientists like Robert Boyle, Leonardo Da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius  and Ambroise Pare discovered many things through drawings and dissections.  Vesalius's dissections of the human body and his descriptions of his findings  corrected misinformation previously taught by the church.  Boyle discovered the process of combustion and the properties of gas, especially under changing pressure conditions.  Leonardo Da Vinci dissected 30 deceased corpses to gather information about the brain, muscles, lungs and the heart. This process didn't go over well with the Roman Catholic Church because they believed that humans shouldn't be used for scientific purposes, but rather buried forever and they didn't like that scientists were questioning the teachings of the church and the Bible.  Ambroise Pare was a surgeon who used science to study people who lost limbs in war.  He created ligatures for binding arteries and encouraged people to use prosthetic limbs.  As technology got more advanced, scientists discovered more things about our planet and people are started to question the teachings of the Church and the Bible.

Leonardo Da Vinci's study of a skull

     I am a merchant and I just heard about the medical discoveries of Da Vinci, Vesalius and other scientists while on a business trip.  I learned that their discoveries are the topic of heated debate between the Church and the scientific community.  I am a devout Catholic so I understand how this is an issue between the Church and the scientific community.  I was taught by the Church that since God created Earth first, then everything else revolves around the center of Earth.  But now I am hearing that the sun is the center of everything. and Earth is only one of the many plants to revolve around the sun.  Scientists are also dissecting human bodies to use as evidence in their discoveries which the Church does not like because scientists shouldn't be questioning the teachings and shouldn't use human bodies for science.  Us Catholics are very devoted to our religion and don't test the teachings of the church but if many professional scientist are proving otherwise, I am starting to listen to them rather than a book.  The scientists aren't just coming up with a theory but have evidence, drawings and have done dissections.  I am not saying I believe the scientist over the teachings of the bible and my religion, but I am intrigued about this conversation, and I want to learn more to see what scientists are seeing before I make a final judgement on this debate.  I don't really like how scientists are using and destroying bodies that should be buried for scientific discoveries, but if that person devoted their dead body to science, the Roman Catholic Church should have no rule over the bodies being buried.  Even though others, including me, will begin to question other teachings of the church and bible because they may be wrong about the creation of the universe and science in humans, I will always believe other teachings from the Church, the Bible and from God.

Twitter in the 15th Century?

Similar to how we use the internet, phones and television to spread information around the world, in 15th century Europe they used one of the most important pieces of technology ever invented to spread information-the printing press.  Before this wonderful invention, news spread mostly via word of mouth, and it took weeks for news to travel.  Information could also be shared through handwritten books, but since those were expensive and time consuming, most people couldn’t afford them, and it was really difficult to spread information.  But in the mid 1400’s, the printing press changed everything.  People were able to print many page copies in a very short time, drastically reducing the time it took to produce a book.  Books were then mass produced and since they were less expensive, more people were able to afford them and learn to read and gather information.  Ideas spread a lot quicker after the printing press was invented.

This is a fictional interpretation of events that happened during the spread of reformation and the catholic church in the 1500’s.  These two ordinary people live in England during the rule of Henry VIII and are tweeting about his ruling and his new religion he created.

John123

Anyone switch over to Anglicanism cuz I haven’t

Mary445

@john123 I have, everyone in my family and our neighbors have #anglicanism

John123

@mary445 Really? I dont want to cuz I dont respect how many times Henry VIII got married and treated his wives #wedandbehead

Mary445

@john123 haha I heard he’s marrying a lot just cuz he wants a male heir

John123

@mary445 yeah the kid’s gonna have like 5 step-moms tho #awkward

Mary445

@john123 I wonder if everyone will go back to the Catholic Church once Henry VIII dies, what do you think?

John123

@mary445 I bet some will, unless his heir carries Anglicanism by force #religionissues

Simple Letters Lead to Big Impacts

 Martin Luther was a Catholic Monk who challenged the Roman Catholic Church based on a concept called indulgences.  Indulgences allowed people to "buy their way into Heaven". Given the right amount of money, the Church would forgive a person's sins.  Citizens would pay for these indulgences even if they were almost broke and couldn't afford food-forgiveness of their sins were more important.  Martin Luther did not believe that God would accept you into Heaven simply because you pay the church for His forgiveness of your sins.  Luther then challenged the Roman Catholic Church about his belief and wrote a  simple letter to the Archbishop of Mainz to explain his position.  As Luther gained more popularity, he began to write more.  This quote was written by him around 1535, about his believes towards the church, God and the Pope.  "The main reason I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority.  He said, although Christ is the head of the Chrurch, there must be a physical head of the Church upon Earth...Further, he took power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God."  This quote expresses how Luther didn't believe in how the Pope ran his Church and his religion.  Martin Luther challenged the church because the people in power cared more about allowing indulgences than they cared about their own people. 

     Martin Luther's intention from the beginning was to express his beliefs towards the Church, and how he thought they weren't doing what's right-what the Bible says.  Luther's movement started with posting letters in the church, but his actions escalated quickly.  His inspirations sparked a change in the peasants' attitudes toward their economic sufferings, and soon the peasants revolted.  At first, Luther was sympathetic towards the peasants and issued a document, "An Admonition of Peace".  But once many riots broke out, he was shocked and made a point that his writings were misinterpreted, and that he meant everything in religious terms.  Luther then published a document,  "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants", and he sided with the German Rulers, who took Luther's approval of them too far by slaughtering and driving out hundreds of thousands of peasant rebels.  Martin Luther had positive and negative impacts on the Roman Catholic Church and the citizens in Germany during the 1500's.

Video of the social impact of Martin Luther and the Peasants' Revolt:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzZYmcW8T-U&feature=youtu.be

The Rise of The Medici

     The essential question we studied was "How did new wealth in Florence lead to new art and ideas during the Renaissance?".  We did several activities in class to get to the answer of this question.  Some activities were watching a video on the Medici family, reading about patrons of art and an activity in which we were the patrons and had to choose our artist and what we wanted them to paint.  A patronage was a person from a wealthy family who paid artists to produce magnificent work, and these art works helped gained respect and power.  The Medici family began to gain wealth and power by running a small bank in Florence.  They then later became the official church of the Roman Catholic Church, which controls most of Europe.  They sponsered Brunelleschi to build their reputation.  Brunelleschi was a classical architecture genius, but he had an unpredictable temper and personality and was sometimes disagreeable and unwilling to compromise.  He built a temple/chapel dedicated to the Medici and also built an orphanage.  Later, The Medici convinced the government in Flornece to let Brunelleschi try to build the dome on the cathedral.  Machiavelli's job for the Medici was to serve as Pieros' political advisor and protege before the popes militia invaded the Medici family.  But once Medici had taken over Florence, they threw Machiavelli in jail, tortured him and then exiled him.  Machiavelli wanted to work for the Medici in their new Florentine regime, so in order to convince the Medici of his desire, he wrote a book called "The Prince".  His story was about his ides of being a good leader, and he dedicated it to the Medici but this was not enough to convince the Medici.

     I read an excerpt from "The Prince", and it was about the differences between being feared and being loved.  It says how it is much safer to be feared than to be loved.  Men respond better to someone they fear than to someone they love. Men will feel they have to perform for the one they fear for fear of retribution, whereas they will be less motivated to perform for the one they love. There will be no fear of disappointing the one who loves them.  Being feared is not the same as being hated. Being hated is the opposite of being loved but if you aren't loved, it does't mean you are hated.  Being feared is when people are afraid of of you, and being hated is when people have a strong dislike towards you.  Being feared is not the same as being hated.

    I agree with Machiavelli's ideas about leadership.  He believes that some characteristics of a good leader are generosity, compassion and loyalty.  I agree that good characteristics of leadership are the ones Machiavelli listed in "The Prince".  I think most of today's leaders use Machiavelli's philosophy, but some do not.  I think many leaders today are generous and are compassionate and loyal.  But, there are always some leaders who don't care about those things and who become unfair and mean towards their citizens.  Machiavelli's "The Prince" lists many of great characteristics all good leaders should have if they want to run a smooth and fair city/state/country.

"The Prince" by Machiavelli  -  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/prince-excerp.asp

Medici Video  -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFDJK8jmms&feature=youtu.be

The Black Death

In class, we looked at two different short articles discussing stories of the Black Death.  The Black Death was a deadly and contagios disease that swept over Europe, killing thousands of people.  In 1338, when the plague started, there was no vaccine to stop the fast spreading disease that was transferred through the someone coughing on someone else or through trade between countries.  The two passages, The Florentine Chronicle and The Decameron we read are about the Black Death.

The first passage we read was The Florentine Chronicle by di Coppo Di Stefano Buonaiuti.  It was written in the late 1370's, about 20 years after The Black Death started in Florence.  The author of this piece was born in 1336 in Florence and experienced the plague when he was two years old.  He survived and wrote this passage about The Black Death 20 years after he experienced it.  This short passage is about how the plague took everyone away from their families and once it entered a house, none remained.  It also mentions how that there was nothing you could do about it but help care for the sick and bury your dead family members.  The author says "it was said" in the beginning of the passage, meaning that he does not remember details on the Plague but that's what others told him.  One reason why this is believable is because di Coppo Di Stefano Buonaiuti was in Florence at the time when the Black Death hit Florence in 1338.  One reason why this passage isn't believable is because he was only two when it happened so might not remember it all.

The second passage we read was The Decameron by Boccaccio and doesn't have the published date on it.  Boccaccio was alive during the Black Death, when it struck in 1348.  Boccaccio was not in Florence at the time of the plague.  In this short passage, Boccaccio discusses the death of a man being dragged through the streets by two hogs.  Boccaccio's passage, Decameron, is a piece of fiction.  He writes it based on what he's heard happened to people affected by the Plague and how towns and citizens reacted to it. One reason why this passage is believable is because Boccaccio knew what it was like to live during that time period, even though he didn't necessarily experience.  Others might think it's not believable for some other reasons.  One reason is because this piece is fictional and he made up the plot line.  Another reason why people might not think it's believable is because Boccaccio didn't witness the Black Death in Florence like di Coppo Di Stefano Buonaiuti did.

My opinion is that The Florentine Chronicle is most believable.  One reason why I think this passage is more believable over Decameron is because di Coppo Di Stefano Buonaiti was in Florence during the Black Death, where as in Decameron, Boccaccio was not in Florence to experience it.  Another reason why The Florentine Chronicle is more believable than Decameron isn because di Coppo Di Stefano Buonaiuti got the information from others who remembered the Plague (because he was only two) and Boccaccio made up the plot line.  Both passages discuss the horrific Black Death, but I think that The Florentine Chronicle by di Coppo Di Stefano Buonaiuti is more believable than Decameron by Boccaccio.

First Day Of School

Hi!  My name is Olivia Sahagian and I'm a freshman in high school.  This is my first blog post.  I will be posting frequently about different topics we learn in history class.  

In the first few days of school, most students are asked about what kind of teachers they like and some goals they would like to set.  Students are asked so the teacher has an understanding of what kind of student they're like and because they want to help them reach their goals.  I'm in 9th grade, so I've had many teachers before and few stand out in my mind not just because they were nice but  because of the other great qualities in them.  I believe one of the most important qualities in a teacher is being able to relate to their students.  If teachers can relate to their students then they can figure out the best way of learning for each of their students and can come up with fun ways to learn.  Another great quality all teachers should have is be able to engage their students in the lesson, to make it fun and interesting to learn about.  They could make the lessons into a fun, creative, group activity instead of having the students take notes all class.  If my teacher had these qualities then I would enjoy class more and learn better.  Having qualities like this makes students like their teachers and the subject they're learning more.

The very talented author, John Green, has a video up on youtube for kids returning to school.  In it, he talks about how school is not for us personally but for the world because they believe in students in school to grow up and use what they learned to discover and invent great things.  I agree with John Green in this scenario because I also believe that using everything we learn in twelve plus years of school, every single one of us could make the world a better place by using our knowledge to invent and discover new things.  To be able to accomplish great things, it is always helpful to set some goals.  One of my goals is to improve on comprehending readings.  Another one of my goals is to work on my shooting in basketball and to make ten out of ten foul shots by the end of the school year.  I can work towards my academic goal by taking notes, re-reading and asking questions about the piece of writing for a better understanding.  To achieve my basketball goal I can try to practice shooting outside everyday I can to get my shot consistent.  Goals are a very important part of our educational, personal, and physical world.