"The Peasant Emperor"

The essential question we studied in class was “were enlightened absolute monarchs more enlightened or more absolute?” We did two activities in class to answer this question.  One activity we did was read about three enlightened absolute monarchs and made a venn-diagram.  The three monarchs are Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, and Joseph II.  The venn-diagram we created distinguished the enlightened and absolute things the rulers did.  When we were done and discussed, it turned out that Frederick was the most absolutist, along with Catherine and Joseph II was the most enlightened. The next activity we did was split into small groups to make a propaganda poster.  Each group chose one of the monarchs and made a poster.  The point of these posters were show the enlightened things the ruler did, so the posters were biased towards them being enlightened rulers.  These activities helped us answer the question, were enlightened absolute monarchs more enlightened or absolute.

An enlightened monarch was one was benevolent.  They have a well informed and rational outlook when they rule and look at different perspectives, appealing to everyone’s needs.  Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great and Joseph II all considered themselves enlightened.  But they were also absolute rulers, so they are enlightened absolute monarchs.  An absolute monarch is one who has total and complete power of the citizens of the country.  By the mid 1600’s, citizens were fed up with the lavish lifestyles and costly wars of absolute monarchs.  So, many philosophers and scholars decided that reforms needed to happen.  They believed that these reforms would be best if they came from enlightened, benevolent monarchs.  But, these enlightened monarchs were not completely enlightened and ended up being enlightened absolute monarchs.

My group had the ruler Joseph II.  Our poster’s slogan is “The Peasant Emperor makes excellent happen”, much like the New Balance slogan “Let's make excellent happen.”  We chose that slogan because Joseph was the most enlightened out of the three rulers and we wanted to shine a light on what he did.  Unlike many monarchs, Joseph II granted toleration to Protestants and Jews in his Catholic Empire.  Also, he traveled in disguise among his subjects to learn their problems and improve their lives.  This got him the nickname of “The Peasant Emperor”, which ties back to the slogan of the poster.  Joseph II also ended censorship, which is why we have a picture of it on our poster.  Lastly, Joseph II built hospitals, but he sold property of monasteries and convents to get the money.  Selling the property was absolute, but he used it for good deeds.  One thing Joseph II did that was more absolute than enlightened was attempting to bring the Catholic Church under royal control.  Although Joseph II did some absolute things, he was truly a more enlightened ruler than Frederick the Great and Catholic the Great and I believe that enlightened absolute rulers were more enlightened than absolute.

"The Great" Ruler of Absolutopia

Dear Lord and Lady Manager of Human Resources and Kingdom of Absolutopia,

The nation of Absolutopia is seeking applicants for an immediate opening for ruler of the country.  Qualified candidates will have significant experience as an authoritarian leader.  The new king or queen will act in best interests of the nation, promote its stability and expansion, rule in the name of God, and eliminate all threats both internal and external.  Experience managing an army/navy, crushing rebellions and/ or instituting reforms in a plus.

If interested please submit your resume and three references to:

Lord and Lady Manager of Human Resources

Kingdom of Absolutopia

      My monarch is Peter I ("The Great") of Russia. He rules in Russia and he ruled from 1682-1725, which is 43 years.  Peter I was born in Moscow, Russia in 1672 and before his ruling, his father, Czar Alexis I, ruled Russia since 1645.  Peter's brother, Theodore took over the throne from is father and ruled until 1682.  When he died, Peter was the new King.  Peter I ("The Great") is mostly known by the city he had named after himself.  In 1703, Peter ordered a absolutist city to be built, and he named it St. Petersburg.  I have done research on Peter I of Russia and believe he will be a great candidate for the job in Absolutopia.

     I greatly believe that Peter I will be the best ruler of Absolutopia.  If you are looking for a ruler who has features of Absolutism, than Peter I is the best candidate for the job of ruler.  The features of Absolutism he has are having a powerful army, he limits power of nobility and church officials, he makes the laws and dispenses justice and finally he amasses wealth and uses it to display power.  Peter I has a very powerful army, a troop of 600 men who trained in fighting units and learn military tactics.  Peter formulated a plan for a great navy and that's what he got.  He also used his army to attack Sweden and ended with huge victory.  Peter loves having power and limited the power of nobility and church officials.  He taxes nobleman and reduces power of nobility by opening it to newcomers (people who served in civil service and obtained high rank, or sailors and soldiers who became officers), and they gained the standing and privileges of heredity nobles.  Peter also has no problem with making laws and dispensing justice.  He uses torture chambers and has deaths by floggings and burning of victims.  He also uses torture  to get information out of people.  His son was a victim of this torturing.  Peter's son ran away, and Peter announced that if he returned, he would not be punished.  This was not true, and when his son returned, he was tortured until he finally told his father who helped him escape.  This was all part of an elaborate plan Peter had.  One last law Peter made was the increase of taxes, which definitely shows the authority of an absolute monarch.  Peter's favorite part of being an absolute monarch is most likely how he amasses wealth and uses it to display power.  In the beginning of his time being an absolute monarch, Peter took the opportunity to go sailing on the White Sea and form the "Drunken Council of Fools".  He later toured other parts of Europe, traveling through cities, looking at the life in his neighboring cities.  Well into his reign, Peter ordered many buildings to be constructed and a new city St. Petersburg to be founded.  This city was named after him, and Peter later moved the government to St. Petersburg and made that city the new capital.  With Peter's great wealth, he could do whatever he wanted.  Peter I ("The Great") of Russia was definitely an absolute monarch and would be perfect for the job of ruler of Absolutopia.

     I believe that Peter I ("The Great") of Russia would be the right fit for the job in Absolutopia.  He is a good candidate for the job because his characteristic fits the job of an absolute monarch and the way he rules fits under many of the features of absolutism.  The features he follows are having a powerful army, limiting power of nobility and church officials, making laws and dispensing justice and amassing wealth and using it to display power.  Electing Peter I ("The Great") of Russia for absolute monarch of Absolutopia would be an excellent decision.

Sincerely,

Olivia Sahagian

Three Appeals and Seven Colonies

     In class, we learned about the middle and southern colonies in the 1600's to 1700's.  The colonies we learned about were Georgia, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, The Carolinas (North and South), and Pennsylvania.  We split into groups of two, and each group was assigned a specific colony.  My partner and I worked on a project on Georgia.  We had three days to learn about our colony and make a tourism video to attract settlers from England to move here. These projects were tourism videos and before we made them, we learned about how tourism videos are made to attract settlers to the colony using the three Aristotelian Appeals- Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Each group then presented their video to the class and they took notes.

     My group's colony was Georgia.  Georgia was established in 1733 and it was created for many reasons.  This colony was created because a group of charitable investors wanted to make a Utopian society for English citizens.  Also, the trustees (someone entrusted to look after a business) wanted to make a haven for people who had been put in jail in Europe because they couldn't pay their debts. Lastly, Georgia acted as a guard for the southern colonies against attack from Spanish Raiders based in Florida.  The primary leader of the colony Georgia was James Oglethorpe,  He was the one that led the group of investors to King George to ask permission to start the colony.  Oglethorpe and the trustees also ruled Georgia, but the were very strict and it was because of Oglethorpe that the settlers lived at peace with the Native Americans.  Georgia's economy was based on growing rice and indigo and trading ship supplies.  Each family was permitted a plot of land to farm, but many complained that some families got more fertile lands than others. There were no slaves permitted at first, but the trustees later changed their rules and enslaved Africans were brought to work in the land.  Alcohol was also prohibited at first, but later allowed so that settlers could consume and sell liquor.  Georgia didn't end up like the intended Utopian colony, but it was still a great place to raise a family.
   
     There are three Aristotelian Appeals- Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.  To appeal to Logos, you use logic and reasoning in your persuasion.  To develop or appeal to Ethos, you use character and ethics when you persuade.  In other words, you help the reader see that the author is reliable, trustworthy, respectful and credible.  To appeal to Pathos, you use emotion to persuade your reader.  You use emotional language, vivid descriptions and emotional tone in your persuasion.  My partner and I used Pathos in our tourism video to persuade settlers to come to Georgia to raise their family.  We used phrases like "a place where you can do it all", "the most ideal place", "start a new life together", "family", "Georgia welcomes anyone" and "live at peace" to catch our audiences attention in an exciting, emotional way.  Learning about the different ways to persuade your audience helps with writing, especially in school, and you can use the three Appeals with anything.

Take the Risk

     The Separatists were a group of people who separated from the Church of England and made their own church, the Separatist Church of Scrooby, with help from William Brewster.  The questions we answered were, What are the factors that can convince people to take a great risk, even if that risk is not guaranteed to succeed? And were the risks taken by the Separatists worth it?  It is important to answer these questions as we study history so that we know what the land of America was like when Separatists settled here and what the overseas trip was like and how they survived the first winter in Plimouth.  The activities we did in class to answer these questions were analyzing primary source letters written by John Smith and William Hilton and answering questions to fully understand the lives of Separatists.  We also watched a video that explored deeper the lives of the Separatists.  The Separatists took many risks without knowing the consequences.  

    The Separatists went through a lot of trouble before getting to the new land of America.  In England, the King made it very difficult to live, so they took the risk of moving to a new colony.  The Separatists' main problem with the Church of England was that they wanted to separate from the church because they thought the church was too involved with other things.  They tried to live in other cities, but they found it difficult to be true to their beliefs so they had to go somewhere new and start fresh.  So they decided to cross the Atlantic and go to America to settle.  A letter from John Smith made the impression on them that America was a good place to start a new and permanent colony.  But was starting a new life in America worth the harsh trip across the Atalntic Ocean on the Mayflower? Thirty men worked on the deck while Pilgrims below the deck struggle for fresh air while they emptied their chamber pots.  Halfway to America, a storm hit and the ship started to leak and a main beam cracked!  These leaks and cracked beams were eventually fixed.  Due to this storm, the ship was blown off course and headed north of where they expected to land in Virginia.  They finally came to the shore in Massachesetts in November, 1620.  As winter came, they moved to Plimoth to settle there.  The first winter in the New World may have been worse than their trip acorss the ocean in the Mayflower.  Exposure, malnutrition and illness led to half of the crew and passengers dying.  Then throughout the winter 40 more died, leaving seven men healthy enough to help the sick.  And two later fires still didn't stop these settlers, and eventually they built their new settlement with six cannons for defense.  Later that winter, the Pilgrims met the Native Americans, and their relationships started.

    Although there were many tragedies that happened to the Separatists, there were many benefits to settling in the New World.  A letter from John Smith attracted people to come settle with him.  Describing America in the letter, John Smith said, "the Masters by this may quickly grow rich; these may learn their trades themselves, to do the like to a general and an incredible benefit, for King, and Country, Master, and Servant...".  He implied that when masters take ten or twenty young settlers(with little family), they can learn and quickly grow rich.  They will also learn to trade and this will all help the King, England, masters and servants and everyone will benefit.  When the Mayflower Compact was being written, they decided to work together to make laws for everyone to follow, and these laws will be for the good of the people.  They will also elect one person from time to time to run the government they set up.  The Compact states, "Solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic...; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, offices from time to time as shall be though more meet and convenient for the general good of the colony...".  The biggest benefit was shown in America after the first winter.  William Hilton wrote a letter home describing Plimouth, "The Indians round us peaceable and friendly; the country very pleasant and temperate, yeilding naturally, of itself, great store of fruits...and great flocks of turkeys, quails, pigeons and partridges; many great lakes abounding with fish, fowl, beavers, and otters.  The sea affords us great plenty of all excellent sorts of fish...".  This is saying that the Indians were friendly and peaceful, the weather was good and the country was green and plentiful.  Fruits grew naturally and many wild animals wandered the woods of trees, and lakes were stocked with an abundance of fish.  Hilton made it seem like America was an amazing place for his family and others to settle.

     The questions we answered about the Separtists were, what are the factors that can convince people to take a great risk, even if that risk is not guaranteed to succeed? Also, were the risks taken by the Separatists worth it?  The factors that can convince people to take a great risk are other people making somehting hard for them (in this case the King), or that their beliefs or ways of living don't follow the rest of the country or place in which they live.  The King made it very hard for the Separtists to live their becasue of their beliefs, so they took the risk in setting in the New World.  The risks taken by the Separtits were definately worth it.  Even if many died on the way to their new life, settling in America created a new life for those Pilgrims as well as their families and many more.  The trip on the Mayflower was terrible, but it was all worth it by the following Spring when John Smith wrote the letter home about Plimouth and how amazing it is with all the benefits they have.  Taking risks is important, as Einstein says “A ship is always safe at the shore - but that is NOT what it is built for.” (Albert Einstein).

The First Winter in Plymouth- http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/Social%20Studies/05/0101firstwi.html

Drive Thru History- Separtists- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uWvm1QBCdE&feature=youtu.be

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?