Nixon - Watergate

Nixon Watergate Scandal

 

 

-A series of political scandals during Nixon's presidency involving many of his closest advisers

    -Possibly was ultimately the reason for his resigning on August 9,1974

 

- To start, five men were arrested for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters (at Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C.) on June 17, 1972

    -The FBI, Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee (as well as the press) revealed that this was part of many, many illegal activities carried out by President Nixon's staff

 

-It was also revealed that the other crimes included: campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping, and a secret fund in Mexico to pay those who carried out these operations

 

-After two years of continually growing evidence against President Nixon and his staff (the process including former staff members testifying against them in a Senate investigation), there was a revealing of a tape recording system that Nixon had in his offices that he had used to record many conversations

    -The recordings from these tapes revealed that he had indeed obstructed justice and had also attempted to cover up the break-in

    -The recorded conversation became later known as the Smoking Gun

 

-Battles in court eventually came to the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruling in United States v. Nixon, that the President would be made to give up the tapes; which he complied to

 

-With the very real possibility of impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate, President Nixon resigned just ten days later

    -He became the only US President to have resigned from office

 

-Gerald Ford became Nixon's successor after the resignation

~Honors 10 History Final~

by: Alex Butler

When taking time to look at what made great historic leaders have such an impact on their society, we find many different leadership 'qualities' in these people. Of course, what makes a leader great depends upon may different aspects; including what, exactly, they are the leader of and what they are trying to do with their leadership status. What works for one person, may or may not work for another and same the other way around. A great leader will develop and adapt themselves to their feats and tasks set ahead of them and will also use their own personal qualities if they may so work in their favor. A great leader will know how to handle themselves in any situation and have many different strategies for these many different situations. In some cases, or in the case of the United States founding fathers, leadership was not done by only one man; but was a collaborative effort by a group of men.

Sometimes, there may not be one single man who has everything that is needed in a leader. This would mean that a collaborative effort would have to be made my many who had their own unique qualities to bring to the table. This was the case with the our founding fathers of the United States; there was not one solo man among them who could take over all that this country needed to be taken over and come around with the outcome that we, as a country, wanted. Each of those men had their own leadership qualities that made them important in the constituting of our country. None would have made enough of an impact on their own or have been recognizable or outstanding enough to be acknowledged as making progress. This was a group of leaders, but not individual leaders it seems. Because they were part of a collaborative group of men, each man inevitably brought his own qualities that were needed in order to have some sort of balance and segregation within such a strong unit. Differing opinions, strengths, and ways of thinking were the needed qualities to run such a country as our own; because of our differing opinions and voices as people of this country. Not one leader could successfully lead the United States and make every single person happy and content with the way things turn out on so many levels. Our country is so diverse; we need as much of a diverse leading as possible to be able to take all ideas and ways of thinking about any situation and formulate the best possible way to attack it.

If able to look at the qualities which this group of amazing men was made up of, you can almost break it down into two different sections or categories. The trio of George Washington, John Adams, and Aaron Burr all seemingly have very similar qualities which they contribute to the leadership role. Astoundingly, each of these men have the courage to stand up for their own opinions and thoughts, the strength to keep persisting, the bravery to put themselves at risk so many times, and the confidence to put themselves in such a stressful and tiring situation knowing what they have to do once thrown into it. These men are all on the very strongly outgoing, ambitious, and intimidating side of the leadership bubble they put themselves into; but they would be terrible if the only leaders with only these qualities to run on. While on the other side is the trio consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison who all have similar ways of attacking their tasks as leaders. Almost on the opposite side of the spectrum from the other three; these men are completely wise, thoughtful when deciding the fate of difficult situations and not ones to jump into something without mulling over the consequences, and very grounded; especially for the immense pressure they have and the public image they struggle to maintain. Once again, though, these qualities alone do not make for the best leader and would not give the best leadership to such a country that needs diversity and different thought processes to run. The juxtaposition of these qualities may seem to be very extreme opposites; but came together for an incredible combination.

While looking at how this leadership team worked so well together, it seems that the shared (as well as differing) qualities that they had and also developed while working toward their common goals evened out just enough so as to have just the right concoction for leadership. As has been mentioned, some of the qualities these men had were complete opposites of the qualities of some of the other men; but this worked out because they seemingly made up for what lacked in the minds and thought processes of their fellow leaders. This was a collaborative effort to offset the such extreme extents to which some of the founding fathers, as individuals, lacked many great leadership qualities. In other words; they offset each other just enough for the perfect balance. Some of the men were there only as 'players' in this group effort, which was needed as long as the group was still leading together, but there were others who were the 'morale boosters'. In any collaborative effort, there need to be some who are there only to do the 'physical' stuff, and some are there as much needed 'team captains' to help the team stay as just that; a team. These people keep the group focused on the task at hand and how it is going to be accomplished; keeping the minds off of the stuggles one has to go through to get the task done correctly.

Taking all of this into consideration, the qualities posessed by each individual founding father constituted to a collaborative effort to lead our country into where it needed to be at the time. This group of individuals balanced their own ambition, ideas, regional materialism, and different personality quirkiness in such as way so as to achieve a feeling and thought as to how a government should correctly be formed in order to work they way it should (and needed to). These men poured the concrete for the foundation of our country. They used their plethora of intelligence, bias, and ego working together flawlessly to collaborate the best ideas possible for the outcome they wanted to achieve. The leadership qualities that each individual posessed would not have been enough to propel them to becoming a great leader alone; but the conjoined effort of the greatest, smartest, most opinionated men in the history of this country allowed for the success that each of them wanted individually. The greater the effort put forward by the leaders of the United Sates, the better and longer lasting the outcome.

Going to War?

by Alex Butler

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal... that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Abstract: This paper will focus on why a war with Britain would be a good thing for America. It will focus on British Acts and taxes on our country and why they need to be dealt with now. For this paper I used the following sources: http://www.history.org/history/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm, http://www.americanrevolution.com/, and discussions from History Class.

I am writing this letter to state my opinions about our current state and conditions with the British. From the point that we now stand at, we have an enormous decision to make affecting the future of our United States. The decision is; do we try to make amends with the British or to go to war with these same peoples? The problems which we currently have in this country of ours are because of the British. They have taken what belongs to our nation and claimed it as their own. They have taken our essential rights as a people and we have to defend ourselves and gain those rights and respects yet again. I believe that the future of our people exceedingly depends upon the decisions that we make right now, today, as a united nation. Some delegates are now coming to Congress committed to declaring our colonies separate and independent of Great Britain. We need to fight the British for what belongs to us to show our independence, freedoms, integrity, and our honor.

Our Nation needs to stand up and declare that we are not going to succumb and we are going to fight until we gain everything back for our country. These British do not have the right to tax us and take control of what is rightfully ours. We have worked and bled to accomplish what we have and they do not and never will, belong here in our Nation. As the citizens of these great United States we need to fight them until we have everything we have worked so hard for. If we all want to forever call ourselves citizens of these Nations, we will fight and not back down until we have the freedom we rightfully own. We cannot let the work of so many great and influential men be seized and sit back and do nothing about it. This country is far better than that and we are going to prove this when we defend out honor by fighting till the death.

About the time of 1765, Britain made the decision to erect a new colonial policy wanting to tighten control over our thirteen colonies. They also wanted to "make [the colonies] pay for their defense and return revenue to their mother country". These new taxes were put on molasses and sugar in 1764 and caused corruption with New England merchants and those who were makers of Rum. This in turn affected what our citizens had to pay for sugar, which is a necessity at this time in many places.

The Britain's want to control absolutely everything in our Nation that they can. This is why they have also put the Quartering Act upon our households. Telling us that we are to provide food and shelter in our own homes for British soldiers whenever the need may arise. This has created many problems with some British soldiers who do not need to abide by any of the house rules and are extremely disrespectful in most circumstances. They are having no respect for the family and creating some problems with taking advantage of them and their children. With the British also controlling taxes on food that we buy, we also have less to give to our own families. With their new act, they have the rights and permission to control everything that we have. If we do not stop them, we will crumble under all they put onto us.

What has happened with the Stamp Act they put upon us? We did not give up and succumb to their laws. As a Nation with rights, we have stood up and defended ourselves. The Virginia House of Burgess adopted Patrick Henry's Stamp Act Resolves. They then declared that Americans obtained the same rights as those of the English, especially those rights to be taxed only by their own representatives. This is the kind or strong will and determination we need to have as a country. And if these taxes and Acts are not enough to get our country to fight, we need to also remember the Boston Massacre. The British soldiers have made many attacks on Massachusetts, but this is one in which some of our men were killed. These Britain soldiers were then sent to trial only getting off with a few slaps to the wrist and brandishes on the thumbs. If we think this is justice for what these men have done to our colonies, we are completely and utterly indispicable. We as American citizens of these United States have to ban together to do the right thing. We need to defend the honor of our colonies which have suffered, our country and Nation, as well as the independence that our ancestors worked so hard to obtain for our sake and for the sake of the future of our glorious and free country.

To the author of the New England Courant,

I am very much aware of the affects that any one Person's thoughts may have upon the Publick. Especially when brought to the Attention of many people, writings can be disagreeable and to a Certain Person. I, indeed not Anyone, has the ability to please All people while presenting one's own ideas. The various ways in which one thinks, cannot and will not, be the same for every Person. Some Certain idea may be pleasant to one individual, but then repulsive to Another. He who writes to All peoples intending to make them agree, will not Succeed in such ways of persuasion. One needs to have strong feeling and Connexion to whichever they will write of. The Writers and Thinkers alike will, at some Turn, have some Thought which is pleasing to some Person which opposed other thoughts. The One who will seek the approving of All peoples will in Turn be the One who does not teach a thing and in return, does not learn a thing.

From my Youth, I have been benevolently Studious to endeavor myself for a Better and more desirable Mind, as well as Knowledge, and to Understand more capably all things I Want. What I desire by this letter, is for some One or some Ones in the Publick to benefit from my small Stock of Knowledge. And, in Some Manner, be useful to many Minds in return.

Silence Dogood

Abstract: This paper will discuss what happened with the contact Native Americans and English settlers of Jamestown. It will look at the cultural changes that the Native Americans went through during this time and leading up to the American Revolution in 1776. Looking at different occurences during this time that changed the Native Americans because of European contact. References inlcude: The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, website http://www.dowdgen.com/dowd/document/pequots.html, http://www.teacheroz.com/colonies.htm#Native, and also classroom disscusions.

Native Americans & Jamestown Settlers

Revolutionary Changes

by Alex Butler

The establishment of Jamestown was the first English settlement in North America. It was located near what is today Williamsburg, Virginia and was established on May 14, 1607. The Powhatans were very suspicious of these new peoples. These settlers had also arrived during a conflict between the Powhatans and the Chesapeakes, and supposedly were caught in the battle. During the first couple of weeks, the Europeans were attacked by some of the Indians. In the first summer, half of the colonists died from many diseases. The surviving of these colonists did not make much of an attempt to support themselves and their hope was in the Native Americans 'willingness' to feed them.

The Powhatan Uprising began on March 22, 1622 and was an attack of the Indians on the English settlers in Virginia. Hundreds of Powhatans came to the English colony and burned settlements and plantations all along the James River in a very sudden and quick attack. Approximately 350 English colonists were killed and 200 Indians once there was a signed treaty. The Indians attack was somewhat seen as a way to take their land. Edward Waterhouse wrote saying 'We, who hitherto have had possession of no more ground than their waste, and our purchase, may now by right of Warre, and law of Nations, invade the Country, and destroy them who sought to destroy us...'.

The Pequots were one of the most powerful groups in New England at the start of the 1630's. They controlled a large amount of area in what is now Connecticut and dominated many tributary tribes. Many disasters, catastrophies, and epidemics caused the Pequots to loose much of their population, which in turn caused them to loose some grip on their tribitary tribes. In 1636, the Massachusetts Bay colony forced Captain John Endecott to go to Block Island and kill all male Indiand he found there. He burned two of their villages which only resulted in one death. In years to follow, hostilities between the settlers, Pequots, and other small tribes escalated into the first Indian War. The huge end to this war was in 1637, when nearly 300 Pequot men, women, and children were burned out of their villiages, hunted, and then massacred.

Between the years 1630 and 1633, the Great Migration brought around 3,000 settlers to Massachusetts Bay. There were large areas of land that had been cleared and settled by Native Americans that had started to turn back to forest. William Wood talked about places 'where the Indians died of the plague soem fourteen years ago' that then happened to be covered in 'much underwood ...because it hath not been burned'. The Pilgrims then felt they were in a (quote from The Earth Shall Weep) 'hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men'. Massachusetts Bay was then arranged in that area that had been greatly cleared of Native Americans.

Thomas Dongan signed a treaty with the Five Nations, respecting their positions and letting them bring other tribes into alliance with the English. Anyone who joined this Chain of Covenant, he said, 'shall be protected from any outrage or force and I shall not suffer them to bee disturbed or harmed, but shall looke upon any violence offered that way, as done to my selfe'. The two sides actually viewed this Covenant Chain differently. For the Iroquis, it meant the same as the principles of the League: being associated with different people who came together for 'mutual defence'. The English viewes the Chain as a pyramid: New York at the top, the Iroquis (and New England Colonies) in the middle, and other dependent Native Americans at the bottom of this pyramid.

This period of time meant complete revolution for the Native Americans. They were hurt so badly as a society that they almost ceased to exist at all after these changes in their lives. They lost and forgot who they were and had been during this. They also forgot how they worked as a culture and how to get that back again. The Indians were no longer united and they lost their ability to trade well. The many Indians who died also did not help them to advance during this revolution, and the ones who were left afterwards could not keep up with their old culture. They ended up losing all that they had and could not gain it back again.

Abstract: This paper will compare and contrast the Early Jamestown settlers with the Plymouth colony while relating the different interactions with the Native Americans of their regions. It will also show how religion and social interactions affected the relations between the Native Americans with the English settlers if different colonies and different settlements. Sources and support include The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, websites (http://www.apva.org/history/index.html, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h519.html, http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/researchstarters/plymouth/, and http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/teaching/jamestown/images/jsmith.jpg) as well as classroom discussions.

Exam #2

~Jamestown & Plymouth Colonies~

The English Jamestown colony along with the English Plymouth Puritan colony pilgrims each had their own reasons and ways of interacting and working with the Native Americans. These interactions can be seen through the reasons for each of these colonies coming to America, religion, King Phillip's War, and also the Powhatan Uprising.

The Jamestown colony was sent by King James I in June of 1606 as a group of entrepreneurs from London they called the Virginia Company . Many of the artisans, craftsmen, and laborers that came to North America helped with every effort that they had to make this colony succeed. The English settling groups have claimed their intentions to have been to spread Christianity, although many say that their real intentions were to find gold and silver. The reason for the move was to make money and they did that by developing exports for England. The settlers also depended on the Native Americans to have the necessary food for their survival and continued to take the food from them. This did not happen to give them a stable economy or colony, they were simply interested in money and knew that the Natives would have food they could live on and take whenever they needed it. This made it difficult for the Natives of Jamestown, who wanted to still have trade with the English, but wanted their food for themselves as well. The Jamestown colony tried to keep things how they were with the Natives, and did so by letting them be afraid. The Jamestown settlers possibly even planned to depend upon the Indians as they got their trade started, but knew they would have to be careful so not to insult them in any way. One of the biggest difficulties once this colony was settled was that they needed soldiers, farmers and craftsmen, but all that they had were men who were not used to manual labor. They wasted time and energy on looking for gold and silver and other ways of making easy money, when they would soon be depending on crops having been planted. These actions resulted in over one-third of the colonists dying of malaria, typhoid fever, scurvy, and dysentery. Later, the colony developed a cash crop of tobacco for their exports and which helped boost their colony and economy.

The Plymouth colony was America's first permanent Puritan settlement and was established in December of 1620 by English Separatist Puritans. The name Puritans was given to the extreme Protestants in the Church of England, who wanted to purify their national church by removing all Catholic influence it had. Many Puritans moved to the New World to find a commonwealth in New England in the 17th century. Among these people were the Pilgrims who founded the Plymouth colony in 1620. During the colonial period, Puritanism had much direct impact on religious thought as well as cultural patterns in America. It's influence in the 19th century did not have a direct effect, although can still be seen in the importance of education in religious leadership and religious motivations. This Puritan colony left England to find religious freedom and a better life with it as well. The settlers began to build shelters for the harsh winter, although by the end of the winter half of the colonists had died. The Puritan colony did not depend upon their trade and wanted to have independence and a stable lifestyle for themselves. Although they did trade with the Natives, they were not dependent only on them. The Puritans came to North America for a very different reason than that of the Jamestown settlers. They came to America because of their separatist religion. This, along with their religion, therefore affected how they interacted with the Natives. Which also meant that they did not need to be involved at all with the Natives for survival. Although, Squanto taught the colonists to plant corn, gather fruits, and to catch fish. The Puritans also got to meet the Indian Samoset, who then introduced them to Massasoit (chief of the Wampanoag Indians) with whom they signed a peace treaty.

The Powhatan Uprising was a fight between the Powhatan Indians and the people of the Jamestown colony. It came about because of some of their recent conflicts and tradings of the Jamestown settlers. The result was an attack on the Jamestown colony by the Indians in which killed almost three-hundred and fifty colonists. The uprising was very short and did not extend beyond this. After the death of Massasoit, the Wampanoag tried to get rid of the English settlers resulting in the King Philip's war. It was named after Philip, who was the son of Massasoit. The war lasted from 1675 to 1676, and happens to be the most destructive Indian war in New England's history. Fighting started at the frontier settlement of Swansea in June of 1675, which then resulted in conflict between Indians and the English across parts of New England, including colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Eventually other colonial parties forced even greater destruction onto the Indians, until they were defeated and did not resist and fight back again.

The two colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth both came to America for different reason and therefore had different interactions with the Natives and different reason to interact with them as well. The Puritan colony settled in North America because they wanted to practice their religion and live with no other influences on it as well as their culture. When there were common disputes between the Puritans and the Natives, the colony wanted to settle everything for the purpose of their religion and way of life. This can be seen in the length of the Powhatan Uprising. The Jamestown colony differed from this because their reason for coming to America was for trade and exports. This also meant that they did not get along and interact with the Indians as well as the Puritan settlers. For this reason, they almost always had some conflict with the Natives. The different reasons for these colonies to settle in North America meant that they also had a different purpose for interaction with the Native Americans.

Abstract: Looking at the Native Americans and the Europeans, this paper will discuss whether a civilization can develop while living in cyclical time. A civilizations concept of time can greatly affect how they develop together as well as how quickly. Support and sources include The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson as well as http://www.abia29.hemscott.net/Inner_Dialogues.htm and discussions in class.

~Cyclical Time vs. Linear Time~

Looking at Native Americans and Europeans

by Alex Butler

How if, some day or night, a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you:

"This life, as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh. And everything unutterably small or great in your life must return to you, all in the same succession and sequence, even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself.

The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over and over and you with it, a mere grain of sand."

From The Joyful Science, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Time is a very important part of a civilizations development and growth. Two different kinds of time, or ways of looking at time, are linear time and cyclical time. Time is one of the most important aspects to a successful civilization, and civilizations ultimately can depend on how they define or view time. If Native American and European civilizations are compared, it can be seen whether a civilization can or cannot develop while living in cyclical time.

When looking at cyclical time, it is observed as a 'timeline' that is actually a big circle. When looking at this, it seems that time has no beginning or end, but the future and the past are joined at one point. It implies that the future has already happened and that it is already determined. This means that nothing can be changed or 'improved' as well as meaning that, in all of time, there is no final place to end up and no ultimate purpose for anything. Linear, on the other hand, is observed as more of a straight line, or as the typical timeline. Linear time has a set or definite beginning as well as a set or definite end. It is also always moving on a certain path towards a certain point or a certain goal. With linear time, it progresses and looks toward the future and possible opportunities.

Different civilizations that use cyclical time cannot actually directly experience time, they can only experience what is with them or what they are doing 'here and now'. This means that their time is only a certain way of interpreting what they perceive, which is also the same with linear time, the straight-traditional model.

The Europeans were a civilization that lived in linear time. Their beliefs were that God created the world and that the world would end after so much an amount of time, there was a creation and eventually would be an end. They wanted to try and advance as much as they possibly could to better themselves for their future as a civilization. They knew that they would have to advance themselves so that they would have the best possible to them in their future. Their linear time was not only a straight timeline, it was also a line of constant progression. However, the Native Americans cyclical view of time created a very different view of their civilizations own future. The Native Americans were a part of the earth and the land that they lived on, and were connected with it for such reasons. Cyclical time can be viewed sometimes in Native American myths or stories. They also did not believe that they were, in any way, deprived of or lacking anything in their lives or in their civilization that they needed to improve upon and so they did not find it necessary to develop into something more. They did not think of their future because they were content with their lives and their cyclical way of thinking did not need them to think about anything such as future betterment for them.

The Europeans were always interested in the future when dealing with their food and crops. They started a mass production of the crops that they could have available to them so that they would be better off in the future. They needed to make sure that they would be set for a progressing future and would never struggle to advance their civilization. Europeans were always working for wealth and progression. The linear timeline follows this developing and progressing path of the Europeans. The Native Americans worked as well, although only just as much as they had to. They would only grow enough food they needed for one year and they knew that to be enough for their civilization. They wold know that they could do the same thing in the next cyclical cycle and they would survive with only what they needed for that certain point in their time. The cyclical timeline follows this as the Native Americans knew only the 'here and now' of their survival.

When the Europeans saw how them Native Americans were living, they wanted to change and advance things. The Native Americans were not using all of their land and resources as the Europeans were. They thought that the Native Americans were insane and some used this as an excuse to say that they were not good enough as people. These Europeans knew only of linear time and of advancing and gaining all that you possibly could by using absolutely all that you had to make it happen. The Native Americans living in cyclical time were obviously not at all focused on their economy and their 'underdevelopment'.

With these civilizations two conflicting religions, the Europeans did not have an easy time trying to move the Indians to maximize the use of their land. The Native Americans religion related them directly to a certain place on their land. This place would have a certain significance to a legend, myth, or story for the Indians. The Europeans did not understand this thinking because their christian religion could be practiced anyplace and did not have any special connection to any particular place for it to have meaning. Problems were caused because of this when Europeans wanted to use their land to its fullest and they wanted the Native Americans to move to a different place.

In looking at the differences between a civilization living in linear time and one in cyclical time, it is right to say that the outcomes are very different. The Europeans could maximize their use of resources in order to develop the best future they could have. The Native Americans only cared to use their resources enough to survive. It can be seen that the Europeans, living in linear time, thought about progression and development and it worked well enough that they could maximize their future as they pleased. It can also be seen that the Native Americans could have cared less about their future and did not care to think about it until it arrived. By looking at these, it can be said that the Native Americans were also very happy and content with the way they lived and felt no need for change. In conclusion, civilizations living in cyclical time cannot advance, although they can produce enough so that they stay alive and do not fall apart, if not for an outside invasion of their way of life.

My Essay Question

Can a civilization advance/develop living in cyclical time?

Abstract: This paper will talk about how, thinking about history, we may need to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to choose means", as David S. Landes said in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Looking at hundreds of years of history, we possibly need to think about these words and how this could be a trend in history.

Honors History 10 Mid Term Essay

by Alex Butler

There are things in history that happen over and over and we are supposed to learn lessons from doing these things over and over, correct? There must be lessons that we should learn over hundreds and hundreds of years of doing things that people before us have done. The question is; do we need to keep trying? Is this the lesson that the past 600 years has brought to teach us? It could possibly be that all we need to do is to try and try until we get things right. According to chapter 29 in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations(1 ) we also need to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to choose means". What this means is that we need to improve our skepticism of faith, to avoid believing something just because it is what others believe, to learn as we listen and watch, and to try and clarify and define what we believe to be true and knowledgeable. What I get from this is that we need to keep learning and questioning and watching what is happening in our world and try to improve ourselves.

What we learn from history is going to help the future, in a sense. We learn how and how not do do things. As stated in class many times, Thomas Edison(2 ) was asked how he felt about not being able to find a way to make the light bulb work, he stated "I found 3,000 ways how not to make a light bulb". Things that people learn do not always have to be the 'right' way of doing something, or how something is 'supposed' to be done. We can also learn from doing things the 'wrong' way, or in a way that does not work the way we want or need it to. We can learn from history, not necessarily the correct way of doing things, but a different way that was already tried and we could improve upon.

To look at this question by means of 'the flat world' in The World is Flat(3 ) , there are examples of how and why we need to keep trying. The flat world had changed the way business and communication is done all over the world. Instead of now using horse and buggie to deliver a handwritten letter to someone, all you have to do is type something on your computer, hit send, and it is available to the person within seconds. Would we still be using horse and buggie to deliver mail to people if we had not kept trying to improve and had questioned what was always done? I would think probably not. If we had not always questioned what we could do to improve communication, would we be where we are today?

We might want to "cultivate a skeptical faith" by finding an equal ground for different beliefs, if at all possible. Maybe we need to avoid improving a skeptical faith and possibly be skeptical of faith. During the Enlightenment(4 ) and Scientific Revolution(5 ), when the church had power as well as many beliefs disapproving discoveries in science it brought about the question; 'what criteria can we go by to help us to define what is truth'? Many of these same views and beliefs still have people in conflict today as well. The Scientific Revolution was a time when there was a lot of discovery (as well as development and improvement) in science. It gained its connection to religion during this time as well when it questioned the traditional religious views of the Universe as well as the way people understood the Bible.

The reason for people questioning and trying to define a better truth was to learn and be educated. We learned that humanists started to question and search for truth during the scientific revolution in order to better themselves in their life and to live as individuals and not only as part of a group. Humanism(6 ) made people begin to see themselves as a person who could break out of a certain way of doing things and try something new. They were not only part of a group anymore, but individual people. People tried to develop new knowledge and ways of understanding certain things. The way to do just that was and is to question things all around you. Be sure that you improve yourself and the world that you live in by finding all the knowledge that you can, in any way that you can.

In his book, Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion(7 ) , Thomas Paine says that all religious members are deists and that "they need none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence". He is saying that religious people can be sure of God by his own existence. Which means that he also is saying there is no need for questioning, because you have all of the evidence and knowledge that you need already.

Humans need knowledge. There is not a way that humans could keep gaining knowledge if they did not question and want to learn. We need to try to gain knowledge in order to advance and develop as humans as well as a world and as a whole. Humans should never accept something as it is. We need to try to improve it and make it better for themselves as well as for others in the future. To question things in life is to learn about yourself and improve things for the future. Asking is improving your life

ABSTRACT: The Industrial Revolution brought about new changes with technology. Many inventions were innovated including the steam engine, electric power, railroads, advances in transportation, and also the steamship as well. This went into a world of "higher incomes and cheaper commodities, unheard-of-devices and materials, insatiable appetites. New, new, new. Money, money, money". Dr. Samuel Johnson said "all the business of the world is to be done in a new way".

The Industrial Revolution

~Mental or Material?~

by Alexandra Butler

The process of the Industrial Revolution could be interpreted by being either mostly a mental or mostly a physical revolution. There are many ways to look at how the Industrial Revolution changed the way things were done in many instances. It brought about new innovations and that in turn made this period of time 'the Industrial Revolution'. People 'industrialized' technology and that helped to industrialize the way that many things were done by humans. "The Industrial Revolution brought the world closer together, made it smaller and more homogenous. But the same revolution fragmented the globe by estranging winners and losers. It begat multiple worlds".

The Industrial Revolution could be defined as the time of power machinery turned to manufacturing. It is still going on in some places in thw world as well. Europe, in the eighteenth century, began to industrialize very quickly, although this whole process was probably most quickly industrialized in England. Although, by 1850, western Europe was fairly industrialized because of the coming of electricity as well as cheap steel speeded up the whole process.

There were many technological changes during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries including methods of making glass, clocks, and also chemicals. During this time, these methods advanced greatly with technology. By the start of the eighteenth century in England, many people were already using machines in manufacturing. The steam engine was one of the machines which helped the industrial development in Europe. The use of electricity for machines was limited and cost very high prices through the nineteenth century. Up until about 1900, the only cheap electricity that was used was the electricity made by generators using falling water in mountains of parts of France as well as Italy. Europe eventually gained electricity to use, in the twentieth century. Germany gained electricity in the 1920's, and Great Britain had electricity nearly all over the country by 1936. Electricity was also a huge factor in the quickly changing industrialization of Russia during the 1930's.

What these changes and innovations meant was that machines would now be substituted for human work, effort and skill. This also meant that sources of power opened up a new limitless supply of energy. During the Industrial Revolution (as stated in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, pg. 187), both the economy and knowledge were growing fast enough to generate a continuing flow of improvements. It also changed political power in nations, between nations, and also between civilizations. It also changed the social order. The Industrial Revolution changed ways that people thought as much as ways that people did things. The word 'revolution' could mean many varying things. It could mean simply 'transformation' or it could mean a 'turning'. In the book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, David S. Landes uses revolution to mean "instance of great change or alteration in affairs or some particular thing". Revolutions can be considered good, or something that changes everything. Or they can be considered bad, or destructive of things of value. Revolutions note that it takes many small, as well as large, improvements to make an idea into a way of doing things.

On page 191 of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, it says that "innovation was catching because the principles that underlay a given technique could take many forms, find many uses". This means that there could be many ideas put together to make one thing work, and that these ideas could also be used in another way with other ideas, to make other things work. Examples from the book include; if you could print or make fabric by using cylinders, you could also print or make wallpaper that same way. You could use it to print text faster than by using a press, and make cheap tabliods and novels by the hundreds of thousands. The early economists did not have statistical proof. They relied on history and on personal observations. "We now put our trust in hard data provided they are sanctioned by theory". We probably expect the economic historians to have put their own trust in hard, numerical data, although only if they are proved by historical evidence.

We can see that through the Industrial Revolution came many new ideas and thoughts as how to do things mostly involving manufacturing. It can be seen that there was a lot of thought put into making new innovations in technology and thinking about how things would work and work together. It seems that the Industrial Revolution took a lot of mental skill from humans to 'industrialize' ways of doing things. This also meant that once things were 'industrialized' people did not have to work as hard to get things done, they relied on 'materials' to do things for them. Thinking of the Industrial Revolution like this, you can see how people could consider it either a mental revolution or a material revolution.

Alexandra Butler

Mr. Viles

Honors History 10

12/18/2007

High Street Congregational Church

~United Church of Christ~

High Street Congregational Church is one of the oldest churches in Newport, Maine. The church is located, fittingly, at 24 High Street in Newport. It has grown immensely over 176 years and over generations of people and families.

The high street church grew from an organization, on February 25, 1831, which wanted a Christian church in Newport. Elder Joseph Merrill (who lived and grew up in Cornville, Maine) as well as nine other members, helped organized the church. This organization gained two more members by Sunday February 27, 1831. The first monthly conference was held later that year on March 5^th. The first communion was held on April 2, 1831. The population of Newport grew and different religious groups started to appear alongside the Christian church. These different groups included Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalists, and Universalists. For lack of a better place, all of the religious groups had to meet in private homes.

In the spring of 1837, the Christian church, as well as the other religious groups, decided to build a joint meeting house. It was called the Union Church and the minister of each group was able to use it one Sunday per month. The group raised a total of about $1, 500 was raised. In the late fall of 1837the new high street union meeting house was built and given and dedicated to the members of the Christian community who was attending.

Over the sixty-five years from 1837 through 1902 the church continued to be successful, even though there may have been very difficult things to deal with during these times. Starting about 1850, the Methodists started to have their own meetings and slowly, the other religious groups went their own separate ways as well. In 1902, the church society made as decision that they needed a building that was newer. They again raised money, about $3, 000 total. The old church was then redesigned. More seating was added, electricity, city water, a new kitchen, as well as a ladies parlor. In 1915 the parsonage was built next to the church. With this a new parking lot had to be found to keep the horses and buggies.

The church did not keep a complete record of all the ministers for the church. Starting only at the decade before the 20^th century was anything recorded. Reverend John Webster was the pastor from 1889 to 1916; it was believed that there were sixteen pastors before him. Reverend John Reynolds came to the church in 1925 and was there until he retired in 1941. From 1941 through 1971 the church was served by eleven ministers, ten of which happened to be student pastors during their academic years at Bangor Theological Seminary. In 1971, Reverend Terry Dinsmore became the full time minister at High Street Church. The church flourished under the authority of Dinsmore, while he reached out to both the church community and local community. Under the new leadership, Dinsmore Hall (a new building) was added. Dinsmore Hall included Sunday school rooms, a big meeting room, and a kitchen.

Between 1980 and 1998, six different ministers served the church. During this time, the church had started to fall behind financially. It could not afford a full time minister anymore. Reverend Dr. Henry Wyman, who was a ‘fill in minister’, led the decision for the church to go back to a part time minister. In July of 1998, Al Warden (who was a member of the church) became the new Pastor of the church.

Generous members of the church helped to make many changes in and around the church. They added a new elevator, handicapped accessible restrooms, coverings for the stained glass windows, low voltage lighting for the windows at night, new landscaping, and new siding for the outside of the church building. The parsonage was taken out in 2001.

The High Street Congregational Church has a lot of history dating back for many years. It has developed and has grown through many generations. Thanks to the many contributions and changes so many people made, it has only grown better and stronger over the almost two centuries that it has been open. Newport may be a fairly small town, but every town has history to be looked back on.

Faith or Fact?

by Alex Butler

Throughout history, both religion and science have been a huge part of the human ability to understand truth. In Europe, during the scientific revolution and enlightenment, the church had a lot of power and beliefs that disapproved new discoveries in science. This aroused questions along the lines of 'what criteria can we go by that will help us to define what is truth?' There are different views that came about during this time period that still have people in conflict today. Deism is one of those different views that some people looked at and started to think about, starting during the Scientific Revolution. It helped to clarify thoughts for some people and helped them to define their own truth. From the Renaissance through the Reformation, Scientific Revolution, and a lot of the Enlightenment, many religious leaders thought that religious and scientific views could exist together and actually benefit each other.

During the late half of the Enlightenment the church started to lose their control over education. With the new science, it brought science and religion into a conflict that continues still today. Humanism at the time was also developing as both religious and scientific and sometimes showed how the two ideas could help each other. The humanists are actually some of the first people to look at both scientific and religious ideas and would also sometimes put them together to make ideas that would be acceptable to many more people.

The Scientific Revolution was a period of time in which there was a lot of scientific discovery, development and improvement. It was also a time in which science developed its connection with religion because there was questioning about the traditional religious views of the Universe as well as the understanding of the Bible. What could possibly be the biggest part of the Scientific Revolution is the creation of a more 'accurate' view of the universe. The Geocentric theory was challenged by the new Copernican System, which stated that the sun was the center of the universe. The church's view was of the Earth being the center of the universe which in turn questioned God's role in creation. At this time the Catholic church thought it was a crime to stand for this system of thinking and so, when Galileo backed Copernicus' discoveries, the church decided to put him on trial. Galileo went on to defend himself saying "(the church leaders) have failed to understand (the bible) properly" and they "had a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth." In saying this, Galileo made another conflict for the church and and science which was how to interpret the Bible. He also suggested that the Bible, although the things that it taught were still correct, should be interpreted more symbolically. Which, if this were true and the Bible were more symbolic than literal, the many religious institutions of the time would have to make many, many changes to their beliefs. The Scientific Revolution was important to science and the church because it developed and uncovered information about the universe and a rational approach towards the scriptures.

The Enlightenment grew through the rational approach set by the Scientific Revolution. This also meant that religion was challenged immensely. Rationality went against recognizing superstition, and miracles, without proof. In his book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume discusses miracles. He describes them as "violations of the laws of nature". He basically says that a person has to decide if it is more likely for the miracle to have occurred, or for the person who says to have witnessed the miracle to be wrong; whichever is more likely to be accepted as a fact. This challenges the base of very many religious beliefs by implying that both biblical and contemporary miracles may not have occurred.

Many thoughts of new rationality showed in the development of Deism. Deists were not atheists. They simply said that everything and anything in the universe had its own rational laws given by God which humans could understand using their own reason. This meant to them that the ways both the human and physical worlds worked could be understood by humans when they used their reasoning. What this means is that the ways in which the world (human and physical) could be comprehended was separated from religious thoughts. John Locke thought that people should use nature, their senses, and reason to establish their true knowledge of God. Thomas Paine showed his views on this in his book Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion. He starts by saying that all religious members are deists and then goes on to say "The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence". What he says in this is that all religious people can be reassured to the truth of God by their own existence.

When we move on to science and religion and the conflicts we have today we see that one of the biggest issues happening right now is stem cell research. Many researchers are saying that a lot of very effective medical treatments can be understood through cloning stem cells. The reason for this is because stem cells can be made to copy specific human tissues. The cells offer a possible renewable source for replacement cells and tissue to treat a numerous amount of diseases and disabilities which include Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. There are many, many sections of medicine that this will help.

On the American Catholic website, the Catholic Church describes why they are against stem cell research by saying this 'The Catholic Church is against embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Pope John Paul II said embryonic stem cell research is related to abortion, euthanasia and other attacks on human life'. The controversy surrounding this is similar to that of abortion because the stem cells are gained from destroyed embryos. There is another possibility that cell lines could be developed using cloned embryos, which raises many concerns and controversy that also has to do with human cloning. The biggest opponent of this research is the Catholic church (although many individual Catholics do not have the same view). The official Catholic position is opposed to in vitro fertilization as well because it is 'unnatural' and it results in the production of embryos that are not used.

As long as there are new scientific discoveries being made, there are going to be conflicts and controversy with religion. Between fact and faith. More along the lines of having faith in someone or something would be color. A color to one person could be different from that of another person. Someone could have something wrong with them physically and not see 'true' colors, or colors as they really are. These people need to have faith in other people to know and understand what a (certain) color is. Evidence and proof are the base of where some people put 'fact' and 'truth'. Although many people put faith in scientists and professionals that they know what they are doing and they know how to do their job. These people also put faith in these scientists that they know the 'truth' and are displaying 'facts'.

There are both similarities and differences between the conflicts of these two time periods. During the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment period, it seemed to be that science would keep challenging the church and, in effect, the bible and the faith of the religious people. There were huge discoveries in science that would go against the church and the church would have to defend itself. In the current world, the church is especially concerned with ethics and what is morally right in science and especially in the (human)n and (physical) world. It seems today that the church and religion go against new scientific discoveries and now science has to defend itself against the church.

Although there are many ways to understand and comprehend the universe as well as both the human and physical world, deism seems to be a good thinking process to bring some of science as well as religion into one. Deism focuses on bringing reason into a thought process instead of focusing only on belief and 'miracles'. Belief is still in ones thinking about the universe, but reason helps possibly clarify that enough to have a legitimate thought based on other things in the universe.

The ongoing disputes and controversies between science and religion will never completely cease. As long as there are two kinds of people and two different opinions in the world there are going to be conflicts between different beliefs in science and the church or religion.

Leonardo di Vinci, his paintings and works of art, and chiaroscuro come together to influence later works of art and many new techniques for painting and even photography as well.

Leonardo di Vinci was born on April 15, 1452 in Vinci, Italy. He was the son of a wealthy Florentine notary and a peasant woman. He and his family settled into Florence in mid-1460 and Leonardo was given the best education that Florence, being a very cultural and artistic part of Italy, could offer. About 1466, Leonardo di Vinci was sent to be trained as a studio boy to Andrea del Verroccio (who happened to be a great Florentine painter and sculptor). Later, in 1482, he entered the service of the Duke of Milan (Ludovico Sforza) as the principal engineer and as an architect as well. The Duke had him painting, sculpting and designing court festivals as well working on designing weapons, buildings, and machinery. Leonardo's interests and studies differed so much that he failed half the time to finish projects and other things he had started. He only finished about six works of art in the seventeen years that he worked for the Duke of Milan. These works of art include The Last Supper and The Virgin on the Rocks, although he also left many paintings and works of art unfinished.

In 1499, after the French invaded and Ludovico Sforza fell from power, Leonardo di Vinci was left to look for a new patron. Over those next sixteen years, he worked and traveled throughout Italy. He found a few new patrons during those years, including Ceare Borgia. He traveled with Borgia’s army for about one year serving as a military engineer. In 1503, Leonardo di Vinci was a member of a group of artists who were supposed to decide on the right location for the David, the marble statue by Michelangelo.

From about 1513 to 1516, he worked in Rome on projects for the Pope Leo X, running his own workshop as well. During this time, he lived in the Palazzo Belvedere in the Vatican.

After his patron of this time (Giuliano de Medici) died in March of 1516, he was offered a job as Premier Painter, Engineer, and Architect of the King by Francis I in France. King Francis I, who happened to be his last patron, gave Leonardo di Vinci a well-paid, easy job. This job included an allowance of some sort and a manor house in Cloux, France, where he would later die on May 2, 1519.

Leonardo di Vinci has many, many paintings and works of art for which he is famous for. One of the most important of his paintings, during the Milan period was called The Virgn on the Rocks, which he seemingly worked on for a very long time. From 1495 to 1497 worked on his work of art called The Last Supper, a painting that shows the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. This was one painting in which he tried painting with oil on dry plaster and because of this, it had started to deterriorate by 1500. While staying in Milan, Leonardo also produced many other paintings, drawings, theature designs, and dome designs for the Milan Cathedral. During this time he also started a monument toFrancesco Sforza (who is the father of Ludovico) in the courtyard of Castello Sforzesco. Although this was left unfinished because in December 1499, the Sforza family was driven away from thier home from a french invasion, who also destroyed it.

During the second Florentine peroid, Leonardo painted many paintings, the only one of those surviving happens to be the Mona Lisa. The other name for this painting happens to be known as La Gioconda, supposedly after the name of the woman's husband. This painting is also known for the mysteriousness of the woman in the painting, some rumors say that she was pregnant and that is the reason for the grin on her face. Other scientists are saying that the woman was actually Leonardo himself, after studies of photoraphs of him and the painting. This painting is also an example of two different painting techniques, sfumato and chiaroscuro, which Leonardo was one of the best at.

The definition of chiaroscuro on dictionary.com is the distribution of light and shade in a picture: Painting. The use of deep variations in and subtle gradations of light and shade, esp. to enhance the delineation of character and for general dramatic effect.

Chiaroscuro is a painting technique that uses tones, shades, shadows and highlights to make it look like there are three dimensions on a two dimensional surface.

Developed in the Renaissance, chiaroscuro comes from the Italian words for bright or clear and dark or obscure. It is usually translated as ‘light-dark’. Prior to the Renaissance, shapes were made to have outlines and were also flat and seemingly two-dimensional. They could even be considered as looking cartoonish today. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is the painter (other than Leonardo di Vinci) who is associated with chiaroscuro a lot. The idea behind chiaroscuro is that most people cannot design a colored object with a three-dimensional look or ‘feel’ mostly because their brain ‘overprocesses’ what a persons eye will actually see.

Leonardo di Vinci, his paintings and chiaroscuro come together by Leonardo di Vinci wanting to set himself apart. He was seeing the same pattern with all paintings before his time and even during his time. All of these paintings were ‘flat’ and lifeless. Even though they were on a two-dimensional surface, they could still look real and lifelike. Leonardo di Vinci decided that there should be a certain lifelike quality in art if it was supposed to be of something real like a human or an inanimate object. He wanted his paintings to be different and realistic so he came up with or ‘discovered’ chiaroscuro.

Leonardo di Vinci, his paintings and works of art, and chiaroscuro come together to influence later works of art and many new techniques for painting and even photography as well. Leonardo's discovery and invention of chiaroscuro affected art centuries after he had died, especially the 16th century. This new technique affected how artists painted in the 16th century, and in affect changed art forever. Chiaroscuro is also used today in photography and in flim as well.

There are many factors for PERSIA in the book Medici Money and any of these could be very influential for revolutionary change at this time. The Medici family is very much involved in economics with their banks. The building of different banks all over the city and even elsewhere was a cause for change, building, and revolution in this book. Although this is very influential, the most influential factor of PERSIA in this book is the politics. Politics was the cause for the most change for the Medici's and for all of the city as well because of their government. The people evolved with each other as a whole and as a community, which is why it is very revolutionary.

The way that these people went about running the government was different and caused a lot of change and revolution. To make sure that one person was not going to become a tyrant, there was a new government made up of eight priors and one gonfaloniere della giustizia (which means standard-bearer of justice) elected every two months. The men who were chosen to be a possibility had their names written on tags of paper, which were then put into leather bags representing different sections of the town. From this point nine names were chosen at random. There were two priors for each of the four quarters of the town which meant six priors from seven of the richer guilds, two priors from fourteen of the artisans guilds, and one other from the richer guilds to be elected the gonfaloniere della giustizia. Although these men were chosen at random, they were selected beforehand based on a certain criteria they had to meet which included family and financial history.

In 1421, Cosimo's father (Giovanni di Bicci) was elected gonfaloniere della giustizia (standard-bearer of justice) of the Florentine government. This was the first time a Medici had the honor since Silvestro sided with a revolt in 1378. This also meant that the Medici family was once again up , third richest in the city.

The city made it so that in order for no single man to rule, everyone will rule ( at least everyone from the wealthy classes) if only for a very brief amount of time. It was a smart and idealistic plan, but it was also not the best if they were going to try and decide long term happenings in the city. It is easy, though, to see how this could help a city to evolve on its own. By having every eligible man in the city running it at some point (for a brief time) it means that everyone is contributing to help make the city grow and develop. At this point in time politics was the most influential and biggest factor for revolutionary change in this city.

Human interaction and development in both humanism and the flat world are significant to how humans act in these revolutions. Human interaction is something which helps a revolution because people need to interact with each other to be able to change the future. Development obviously contributes to a revolution because humans develop new ways of doing things and thinking, which starts a change in people overall. Humans need to change over time to learn new things and how to do them. Revolutions help people learn and gain knowledge of what kinds of changes are good for them and what kinds are not going to help develop the future.

Something that impacted both humanism and the flat world is development. Humanism developed when people started to focus on other goals which they had for their themselves and which they wanted to accomplish. These people started to realize that they could have something to live for in their lives other than just to focus on getting to heaven or to the afterlife. This meant that humans were actually living their lives the way they wanted to and had more to live for. Individuals found new ways in which they could view their time on earth and make it worth something, discovering what would make themselves happy every day they strived for that as well as still being involved in the church and wanting to get to heaven. Development with humanism helped people to figure out what it meant to each and every one of them to be a human. Each person thought about how they were considered human other than just by their physical appearance and body. Humanism developed new individuals with new life goals and renovated thoughts about themselves. Development impacted the flat world with its increasing technology. Technology is basically what the flat world is about and what made the flat world. Technology allowed humans to develop so many new connections and in turn allowed them to also figure out who they were as indiviauals. The flat world made people need to be willing to try something new which could eventually help them or control what they wanted to do with their lives. These many people need to be accepting of change and revolution in their daily lives. Development in the flat world broadened the ways in which a person would do their daily activities and go about their daily lives. It broadened many categories in which people could begin to shape and mold their futures and see where they were going to fit in in the ever changing world. The developing flat world also made people everywhere in the world more equal becasue of the rapidly growing technology and communication people could have with each other. Ways that development helped both humainism and the flat world is by looking to the future. Humanism made humans make goals for themselves to accomplish in their lives to make them better and happier. The flat world helped humans set their futures, by being able to discover what they would need to do to get the lives they want, with communication. Development also helped humanism and the flat world with ways for people to express themsleves as individuals and actual people in their competitive world.

Human Interaction impacted both humanism and the flat world. Human interaction with humanism helped people to realize how they were all individuals with different lives that they needed to live. These people all had one thing in common, which was their religion and worship and what they beleived. All of these individual humans could come together to strive for one thing , which was to get to heaven, and could then have their own meanings of their own lives to focus on. Human interaction affected the flat world in many, many ways. Competition in a flat world is magnified because every person is competing with the whole world to get the future they want. Technology is overpowering in the flat world and could be an advantage to some people, which makes people work that much harder to accomplish what they want for themselves. Communication is much easier in a flat world, where you can discuss anything you could ever want to with anyone you could ever want to. Human Interaction also means collaboration in a flat world, where people can help each other that much easier. Both humanism and the flat world have human interaction with classification of every person. Everyone classifies themselves in some way as a human being and in some way, every human is going to be classified with another human being, which is the way that humans think.

While the flat world and humanism are very different in some ways, they are that much more similar in other ways. By looking at humanism and the ways in which humans went about changing their lives for themsleves, we can possibly anticipate what changes are yet to happen in out flat world. Humans have wanted, and always will want, what is best for themselves and will do what they need to to make their lives what they want them to be. Humanism started a revolution of which people realized they needed to change their lives gradually for themsleves to get the future that they wanted someday. We expect, and know, that people today in our flat world want to be happy with their lives and their futures. These same people also know that they have competition in trying to get to their future with so many other people as well. What we can know about the flat world is that people are going to do anything that they need to to get the future that they want for themsleves.

Dr. Faustus

Doctor Faustus sells his soul to the devil by signing a contract with his own blood. By doing this he has limitless knowledge and dark magic. Faustus realizes by the end of the play that he was not happy with the bargain that he made. It may have helped him a few times, but he realizes that he could have had a much more pleasant life if he had not made the bargain. I believe that the term 'Faustian Bargain' means that you believe you can control your fate by not doing any of your own work to help yourself. It may mean that you regret the bargain you have made because you realize that you would have been better off without it. Before Lucifer takes Faustus with him, Faustus pleads not to go and I believe that in that time, he regrets the bargain. You do not want to regret anything at the end of your life, but that's what Faustus did.

The World is Flat (6)

This book really made me start to think about what is happening around me and in my life everyday and how I do not realize it, but it will change the way that I someday live my life. Technology and the flat world have already changed how I communicate with friends and family, and now, how I do my schoolwork. It affects how I may purchase some products and how those products get to me. The flat world and technology affect how my friends connect with friends. Some in a good way and some in a bad way, for example, MySpace is a bad influence of the flat world on my friends. There may be someone who my friends meet online with whom they do not want to 'connect with' in our flat world. Is my future 'untouchable'? I do not know if what I decide to do with my life will be untouchable or if I may have to change what I want for myself in my future because of what I want being 'untouchable' for me. We are all living in a quickly changing and accelerating flat world and I will embrace it and go along with it as long as possible. Only so far can I embrace something which could be affecting what I want for myself to move forward in my life: before it starts to control me to an extent where I cannot stop it to control my own future.

The World is Flat (5)

In some ways the flat world is a positive thing for America. People can connect with people so much easier in a flat world and people rely on technology a lot. Outsourcing is a positive thing for America because it saves companies money while doing the exact same work. Outsourcing could also be viewed as a negative thing for America because by moving work to another country, Americans are losing jobs. Supply-Chaining is a positive thing for America because it means collaborating among suppliers, retailers, and customers to make something valuable for everyone. For the flat world to really be a positive thing for America, the people need to be willing to change the ways in which they live in order for the new technology to help them and be a good thing for them. Everyone in America has to collaborate to make the flat world become a positive environment for them. Yet, sometimes people do not want change in their lives.

The World is Flat (4)

Potential negative consequences to a flat world could be that too much is done with technology. People start to rely on technology to do everything in their lives, which in some cases people might not be as connected as others because of where they live or what resources they may or may not have. Another consequence which could be either good or bad is everything being virtual and done on the internet. People can already talk on the internet, pay bills, check the weather, watch t.v. and movies, research, and shop. Where is the line going to be drawn? If you can do all of this online with technology, how much longer until no one does business with a person or company face to face, instead of computer to computer? Someday when everything is being done by technology and broadening the flat world, there will be people who will loose their jobs. The people who are (as Freidman describes) the 'Untouchables' will be the exceptions to this. The flat world with these things in mind may not be such a good thing.