Andrew Jackson: [White] People's President

This lesson about Andrew Jackson had a seemingly simple essential question: "Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?" This question is hard to answer because Jackson's decisions as president greatly benefited some members of the United States, and decimated others. To begin our study of this topic we divided into six small groups that would each make a presentation of some sort. Each topic would be handled by two groups, but first we watched two videos to give us some background of Andrew Jackson. The first video was a of John Green crash course video about the Age of Jackson. The second one was TED-Ed video depicting a courtroom style argument for and against Andrew Jackson. Then, with our groups we began our study of different aspects of Andrew Jackson's presidency. 

My group chose to examine Indian Removal. The Indian Removal act forced tens of thousands of Natives out of their homeland. Jackson claimed that it was for the best that they leave, that the new land was a better place for them, and that nobody would forced to leave, merely suggested. All of these statements proved to be false. We created a short skit about this issue. The other groups taught us about the bank war, in which Jackson destroyed the Second National Bank, which he believed had too much power over the poor, and the Spoils System, in which political supporters were given government positions regardless of their skill. 

My group's script for our Indian Removal Skit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15L6PofOb0uuPVxtYrng70rdIzu9gN55AccqZ-rO1dNA/edit

Democracy in our Nation's Earliest Days

This is the poster that our group created to answer the essential question of How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s? We used multiple primary and secondary sources to show the democratic processes of the United States in the early 1800s. The first source was a painting showing various aspects of an election in a small town. The next two sources are charts showing the voting requirements and whether the legislature or the people voted. A summary of the Dorr war is also provided. Finally, there are two quotes illustrating flaws in the United States democracy. In my opinion, the United States was not very democratic in the early 1800s.

Revolutions in Latin America

This lesson asked a question that still rings strong today, especially in the wake of the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.  The essential question(s) was: Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? In class, we studied the influence of race in revolutions in Latin America, and the similarities between them. Race was an influence in all of the revolutions, just as it influenced most parts of life at the time. We were divided into three groups, and each group read a summary of their revolution and then created a timeline of the events of their revolution and other events. These groups then broke off into smaller groups that would join up with others to spread the word of their revolution.

Our groups timeline about the Brazilian Revolution

When our groups converged we discussed the similarities between the Brazilian, Mexican, and Gran Columbian Revolutions. All the revolutions were against the European countries who had colonized them, were in general the lower class fighting against the upper class, and all of them pitted races against one another. Both Mexico and Gran Columbia were revolting against Spain, while Brazil was against Portugal. Brazil was also the least violent of all the revolutions. All the revolutions proved that the people in power should be of varying races. The three countries had different outcomes in terms of what kind of government was established. Brazil became a constitutional monarchy, Mexico became a constitutional monarchy then a republic, and Gran Columbia became a Republic. The Brazilian Revolution instated Penisulares as rulers. Mexico overthrew its Creole and Peninsulare rulers. In Gran Columbia, mixed race people overthrew the Penisulares. 

In our society, people are still judged based on race. One of the most applicable examples currently is the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. Whether or not Michael Brown was shot with any reason, there is no denying that the situation is racially charged on both sides, and many people are being judged for their race, white or black. Even more recently, there was another case of a young black teenager being shot by a police officer just this week. The boy had a toy gun, and was shot almost instantly after he was seen. There is almost no doubt that racial profiling was involved. Race is clearly still very prevalent in our society, however, we have come very far, and no longer have an official social structure based solely on race. 

Toussaint Louverture DBQ

When people think of great leaders, they might think of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Napoleon, but rarely of Toussaint Louverture. All these men possessed qualities of leadership. Toussaint Louverture was born a slave in Saint Domingue (now Haiti). He later became an overseer of fellow slaves. A kindling of unrest was building in the island's slave population, and was soon ignited in 1789 by the spark that was the French Revolution. When the French refused to end slavery in contradiction to the new "Declaration of the Rights of Man", plantations were destroyed, and upper class members were killed in Saint Domingue. Louverture rose as a leader of the rebellion, and by 1793 was leading a 4,000-strong army of rebels against French troops. In 1794, slavery was abolished and the inhabitants of Saint Domingue were allegiant to France once again and Louverture was the most powerful man on the island. All was well until Napoleon rose to power and, planning to reinstate slavery, invaded Saint Domingue in 1802. Toussaint Louverture was captured and imprisoned in France, but Saint Domingue was victorious and celebrated their independence as their great leader was dying in a French jail. So how should we remember Toussaint Louverture? Toussaint Louverture should be remember as a military leader, a liberator of slaves, and a ruler, because he brilliantly outwitted the French Army and taught a ragtag group of rebels how to fight.

Most importantly, Toussaint Louverture was a great military leader. Louverture knew what sacrifices to make in order to protect his people. When Napoleon landed Troops on Saint Domingue in 1802, Toussaint was quick to make the decision to abandon and set fire to towns, and flee to the mountain where they would be at an advantage (Document F). Louverture also trained his men in multiple fighting styles to make them a stronger army. He taught the group of former slaves both Guerrilla and European style fighting. This way, they could fight in open fields they way the French soldiers wanted, but also take them by surprise on rough terrain. (Document A) With his army, Louverture defeated the British and the Spanish. Finally, Louverture kept a strict control over his army. When there was rebellion among his ranks, he quickly executed the rebels. While this may not have been the kindest idea, he went to all means necessary to keep order in his ranks, and there is no denying that he was a strong military leader. (Document E)

Along with being a military leader, Louverture was a liberator of slaves. After slaves burned plantations and killed white and mixed race people when France refused to end slavery in 1789, Toussaint Louverture emerged as a leader. Through his great leadership, he led the revolution that ultimately freed the slaves. With the help of Louverture, the revolution convinced France to abolish slavery. (Document A) When it was feared that France would reinstate slavery, Louverture wrote to the French Directory urging them to keep the freed slaves free. He argued that now that they had tasted freedom, going back to enslavement would be that much more painful. Louverture suggested a threat of war, saying of his people: “If they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected again to slavery” (Document B) Toussaint knew how his people felt about being re-enslaved, and wanted to defend the right he had secured for them. The colony of Saint Domingue created a constitution in 1801, signed by Toussaint Louverture, that declared the abolition of slavery. (Document C)

Finally, Louverture was a ruler of his people. As mentioned above, he signed the constitution of Saint Domingue, and took action that led to the liberation of his country. Louverture brought together and led the commission that created the constitution of Saint Domingue. This document stated the abolition of slavery and declared Toussaint Louverture “Chief General of the army of Saint Domingue”. (Document C) As General in Chief, Louverture laid down the law. On November 25th, 1801, Louverture created a proclamation to enforce the laws of the constitution. He discussed the punishment of those inciting sedition and those harboring “foreign cultivators”. He also said that all citizens must have a security card.
(Document D) Louverture was a strong leader who made laws that kept his land safe and his people liberated.

Although Toussaint Louverture may have been a dictator at times, he was a great military leader, a liberator of slaves, and a ruler. First and most importantly, Louverture led his army to victory and united a group of rebellious slaves into a military. Louverture freed the slaves of Saint Domingue. Finally, Louverture ruled his people and helped to create the constitution. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for these things in their respective order. Toussaint Louverture does belong among the likes of Lincoln, Washington, and Napoleon.

Bibliography:

Document A: “Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue”, created from various sources.

Document B: “Letter to the French Directory”, Toussaint Louverture, November 1797.

Document C: “The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801”, signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Document D: “Proclamation, 25 November 1801”, Toussaint Louverture,

Document E: “Toussaint Louverture:A Biography”, Madison Smartt Bell, 2007.

Document F: “A description of Toussaint Louverture”, from “The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements”, William Wells Brown, 2nd Section, 1863.

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848: Epic Fail?

This lesson's essential question asked if the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures like historians say. The revolutions of these years often go unnoticed, as they did not bring as much changes at the French and American revolutions did. To learn the information needed to answer this essential question, we broke up into groups and each group was assigned a revolution. We would all analyze the resources given (all found here) and each group would create a quiz that would be given to the other groups to test their understanding of our revolution. My group was assigned the French revolution of 1830, which to my disappointment, was not the one in Les Misérables. 

When Louis XVIII was restored to the French Throne after the Congress of Vienna, there was trouble brewing. Ultra-royalists wanted to bring back the old absolutist regime, and liberals wanted extend suffrage, while radicals want a republic like in the 1790s. The working class just wanted afforable bread and better wages. When Louis died, his brother, Charles X was made king. Charles wanted absolutism, and six years after his coronation, in the July Ordinances he suspended the legislature, limited the right to vote, and restricted the press.  "Works published without authorization shall be immediately seized", wrote King Charles and His Ministers. Liberals and Radicals protested this, set up barricades, and ultimately took over Paris. They agreed on a constitutional monarchy and installed Louis Philippe as king. He was believed to be worthy, and the legislature described him as "devoted to the national and constitutional cause". However, he really only extended suffrage to the upper class, and favored the middle class at the expense of the workers. With this information, we created a quiz to be taken by our classmates after they read what we did. The quiz went pretty well, and most questions were answered correctly. Our question about whether or not the revolution was a success got mixed results, but overall it was accurate. 

To answer the essential question, I believe that the revolutions did not fail as much as many historians claim. The only revolution that truly failed was the Decembrist Revolt; the other revolutions at least had some effect., even if it was short lived. The Hungary Revolution briefly gained Hungarian independence but then the rebellion was crushed. The French Revolution of 1848 was somewhat a failure in the fact that many people died, as depicted in Les Mis,  however, it presumably involved significantly less singing. However, even though many people died in part of this revolution, it ultimately led to voting rights being secured for nine million people, compared to 200,000 before the revolution., and the election of a president. Even though the revolutions never met their goals, they still brought about change, and at the least, drew attention to their cause. 

Patching Up Europe

This lesson's essential question asked: What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class we learned about the fall of Napoleon, and thought about what we should do with war-torn Europe and it's inhabitants. We watched a video clip on Klemens von Metternich, and learned about the Congress of Vienna.  Metternich had approached Napoleon and requested that he give up his conquests and restore old boundaries. Napoleon denied and threatened to go to war against Austria again. The congress of Vienna was soon started to figure out what would become of Europe after Napoleon was finally defeated, and attempted to reverse Napoleon's changes. We then were presented with the challenges of the Congress of Vienna and tried to solve them from Metternich's conservative point of view. 

The Congress of Vienna (http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/30011286-p%20copy.jpg)

One of the concepts introduced at the Congress of Vienna was the Balance of Power. Like its name suggests, the Balance of Power balanced power between Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain and France. Napoleon, not the French people, was ultimately viewed as the enemy. However, the French people did have to return stolen artwork and wealth. This balance ensured that there was no war between the major powers for the next thirty years after the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna ultimately helped to make France a constitutional monarchy, quell revolution, gave people freedom of religion, issued statements against slave trade and for the protection of Jews.
I agree with the people of the Congress of Vienna. When leaders have their power threaten, if they want to keep their position, they need to tighten their rule. By teaming up, the major powers could cooperate to prevent rebellion. While Napoleon had some very good ideas, the conservative people who were in charge did not agree, and when their power was returned, they wanted to prevent any more Napoleonic shenanigans. This may not have benefited the lower classes, but it returned the wealthy aristocrats to their previous positions. Perhaps it was a bad idea to complete get rid of Napoleon's ideas, and they could've been kinder to the now thriving lower classes. Sometimes, it is better to sacrifice power for the greater good, but it is often hard for leaders to understand this.  In an ideal world, leaders would be perfect and be very willing to sacrifice anything, but in reality, they are human just like the rest of us, and it is understandable that they don't want to risk losing power.

Edmund Burke Talks Conservatism

While today we view liberals as young, hip democrats and conservatives as old, gun owning republicans, these ideologies were defined different in 19th century Europe. The essential question that we were determined to learn in class was what the major political ideologies of the 19th century were, and how they influenced social and political action. The first thing we did in class was define, in our opinion, liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism, and use them in a sentence. While most of us seemed to have an idea of what some of these meant, we all found it hard to put into words. The general consensus was that conservatives support old ideas, liberals are more radical, and nationalists might have something to do with the country. We were then put into groups and assigned one of these three ideologies in 19th century Europe, and given a reading on it. With this reading, we would create a one minute presentation on the ideology. There were two groups creating a presentation on each ideology, and the group with the most effective presentation for each ideology would win chocolate. Clearly, the stakes were high.

These two videos we made using Chatterpix made up our presentation on Conservatism. The videos depict Edmund Burke, also known as " The Father of Conservatism". Burke, voiced by myself, gives the viewers a description of what conservatives believe and what they are opposed to. Burke talks about how he loves monarchy, the hierarchical class system dominated by the aristocracy, and the Church, and hates innovation and reform. This reflects the conservative belief that tradition is the best solution to social and political problems. Conservatives impacted social and political problems by encouraging traditional solutions to problems, and since they were mostly rich, traditional elites, they were the ones in power. Edmund Burke in particular hated the French Revolution, and he also talks about Joseph de Maistre, who wrote a book opposing constitutionalism and reform. Due to the use of a silly British accent, our presentation was voted the best, and we received chocolate.

Along with conservatism, there were two other major political ideologies in the 19th century: liberalism and nationalism. Both of them influenced social and political action. Liberals believed in reform, freedom, and rights, as well as restricting the power of the clergy, aristocracy, and nobility and instead having a meritocracy. They were also against many traditional practices, and preferred constitutional monarchy over absolutism. Nationalism was the ideology that countries were bound together through shared language, customs, and history, and that unity as a national was important. Nationalists in Germany and Italy wanted the unification of their sections into one nation, and wanted to get rid of foreign rulers. These two ideologies were relatively similar. As you can see, the beliefs of these ideologies in the 19th century are a bit different than they are in the modern age.

Napoleon's not-so-little Impact

In his time as ruler, Napoleon made a great impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe. Some loved Napoleon, and some hate him.  Madame de Stael described Napoleon's government as having a "profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature". Conversely, secondary source author P.C. Headley wrote "Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war". Whether or not you like Napoleon, it cannot be denied that he greatly changed Europe's social, economic, and political systems. 
First of all, Napoleon's rule impacted Europe's social system. As ruler, Napoleon abolished serfdom and nobility. This meant that poor people didn't have to be poor their entire lives. Serfs would be stuck in their social standing for life, and the nobility were in power, but Napoleon changed this. He also limited the power of the church.  Napoleon established a Meritocracy, in which people had a chance to climb the social ladder through their skills, not because of the social class they were born into. While the nobility may not have liked these changes, it was a great improvement for the poor. The poor got better access to education and property, and the wealthy no longer had power just because of their riches.
Napoleon also greatly affected the economic system of Europe. Napoleon established the Bank of France and balanced the budget of France and his other territories. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals, all of which helped the economy prosper. He also stole a great deal of wealth from Italy. 

A map of Europe under Napoleon, 1810

Source: http://www.worldmapsonline.com/images/Cram/History/europeundernapoleon.jpg

Finally, Napoleon impacted the political system of Europe. For starters, he conquered nearly all of Europe, except for England, and brought justice to many people. Marshal Michel Ney said of Napoleon's reign "The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights".Napoleon made government run better, and allowed people he conquered to continue to rule their country, only under his Napoleonic Code. This was unfortunate for them, but still far better than them being entirely overthrown. Now he ruled nearly all of Europe by controlling the existing rulers. He also gained control of all the colonies that the countries he conquered controlled on other continents. Napoleon changed Europe forever. 

Chocolate Communism

We entered class last week, the room smelling of chocolate. When we got to our seats we were told not to eat the Hershey's kisses we were given. It seemed everyone was given two, until we noticed that one or two students were given eight chocolates. Upset by the unfairness of this situation, we were given the chance to battle our classmates for their candies in the most complicated battle of wits: Rock Paper Scissors. Each match was for a single Hershey's kiss. Many students went out quickly. I survived for many matches, but still end with less than I started with. The lucky few who started with more chocolate ended with more. Only one person who began with two chocolates ended with more than five. We decided a fair solution would be to redistribute the chocolate evenly, and everyone got three. The two-chocolate students were happy; the ones with more were not. We then voted on whether to eat our chocolate or take it back to Rock Paper Scissors. Everyone chose to eat theirs. While this activity was fun, it was frustrating to lose all my chocolates! So what the heck does this have to do with history?
Our experiences with the Hershey's kiss economy can be applied to the dynamic between rich and poor after the industrial revolution. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both made theories about helping about the poor through different economic systems. Marx's theory of communism described how the poor would help themselves. His theory showed the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. In capitalism, industry is owned privately and there is freedom of competition, and this results in unequal economic classes. Through a workers revolt, this turns into socialism. In a socialist society, the government owns the industry, and it's goal is to create a equal classes, and ultimately no classes. This becomes communism, and the goal of economic equality is achieved, and no government is necessary. A more detailed description of Marx's theory of communism can be found here. Doesn't that sound all fine and dandy? Before Marx wrote his theory, Adam Smith wrote about what he called the invisible hand. He believed that the best economy was one that guided itself. He describes his theory as an invisible hand. The invisible hand pushed economy in the direction of success through the fact that people want to buy high quality goods for low prices. The economy slowly becomes better and better, and good businesses succeed. This is capitalism. but without government control. Smith believed that the economy functions best without a government. This system would benefit the poor by allowing them to succeed, and find the best businesses to buy from. It also pleases the rich because their money is not distributed.
In my opinion, capitalism is the best solution our of the three, however, all of them have drawbacks. Communism seems to be a great idea, but in reality, it leaves the poor poor, and the rich slightly less rich. Capitalism allows people to grow their own business and buy high quality goods at low prices. However, it isn't perfect, as there are still poor people in America. It is better than Communism, which just doesn't work. It is best for government to allow economy to grow on it's own. Neither method is a true solution, but I certainly cannot come up with a better one.

To Mill or Not to Mill?: Benefits and Costs of Mill Life

For people who worked in the mills, there were both benefits and costs. The benefits were what made them want to go to the mills, and the costs were made made them strike. The benefits of the mill life seemed very attractive to the farm girls it was sold to. One of these benefits was getting to experience city life. the girls who would work in the mills, for the most part, had never lived with a lot of other people before. This could be seen as an exciting opportunity. The girls would also get an education. Their wages were large enough that they could send some back to their family and still have enough to support themselves. Workers in the mill were provided with meals, so the girls wouldn't go hungry. Finally, a benefit that parents appreciated was the fact the girls would have to obey a code of conduct. A father figure made sure that they went to church on Sunday, and a mother figure made sure that they didn't stay out late. So the mill life was great, right? Not quite.

The rules that had to be followed by the mill workers

Among all these benefits, there were many drawbacks. One cost was being separating from their family. This obviously left many girls feeling sad. Another very important drawback was that the conditions were very dangerous to the health of the girls. The girls were very likely to contract lung diseases, bone diseases, deafness, illness, lose limbs, and even die.  Over the years, hours got longer and wages got lower. Workers could be beaten by their cruel overseers if they did their jobs wrong. Conditions may have been good in the early years of industrialization , but they soon declined, and the costs of going to the mills outweighed the benefits.

Hanging Out in a Museum 3000 Miles Away

Last Friday, we were informed that on Tuesday we would be having a "Google Hangout" in a museum dedicated to the industrialization of mills in Britain. To prepare for this wonderful opportunity, we did a little preparation work. The man with whom we would be speaking, Jamie, had a video prepared giving us a rundown of what we would see n the mill. We first watched this video to ready ourselves for the video chat. The video walked us through the cloth making process. We noted keywords to look up, including robing, sliver, and slubbing. Then, in our groups we looked up the definitions of these words, so we could ask Jamie questions using the proper vocabulary. We then drafted questions to ask Jamie during the video chat.

Jamie, our explainer

Throughout the chat I learned a lot about the industrialization of the textile industry, especially it's evolution from the cottage industry to the factory system. First Jamie told us about the cottage industry. Before the industrial revolution, families would work their cottages in the country to create cloth to sell. The looms were powered with their feet and fibers would be separated by hand using wire brushes. The fibers would then be put on a spinning wheel. Every member of the family was part of the process. All this changed when the water frame was invented in 1775. The water frame allowed four or more bobbins of thread to be made at once, and it was very important in the transition from the cottage industry to the factory system. The industrialization of machines made work much faster, but also louder and more dangerous. People often went deaf from being around a thousand looms, and accidents were very common. Mills were run for profit, and , as Jamie put it, health and safety didn't exist.

In conclusion, I enjoyed our video chat experience. I thought that being able to communicate with a real person directly was much more effective than watching a video. However, there were issues with lag and choppy signal in the beginning, but these issues fixed themselves. I would definitely like to do another video chat with an expert on other topics throughout the school year.

Curating the Industrial Revolution

For two days, my group and I became museum curators. We created an exhibit about transportation during the Industrial Revolution. First we did our research and analyzed all the documents presented to us. We then planned each element of our exhibit. My job was to type descriptions and captions. We also chose which sections of text we would quote, how to describe diagrams, who would print the pictures, who would write out the title, etc. Analysis is an important part of curating, because if you don't analyze your sources, your information could be incorrect! This is bad!! Our clever title was a high point of our collaboration. We hope that people learn about the advances in transportation during the industrial revolution through viewing this exhibit.

My classmate's exhibits-

Condemning the Innocent- An interesting and sad fact that I learned was that almost half of children in mills started work before they were ten. This exhibit made great use of graphics.

Pollution of the Revolution- I learned that at one time, you could barely see an inch through the Thames. This poster had large blocks of text.

Spinning a City- I learned how quickly London's population grew from 1 million to 7 million. The string was a clever touch, and an almond Joy pun was made.

A Revolution Like No Other

In class we explored details about the advances made during the Industrial Revolution. So what made the Industrial Revolution so... Revolutionary?
One of the ingredients that made the Industrial Revolution so Revolutionary is the evolution of transportation. The invention of the steam locomotive was important to transportation in the Industrial Revolution. Before the revolution, railroads had to follow rivers so a barge could pull the cars. Now, a steam locomotive would do this. Steam power was also applied to boats by Robert Fulton. His steamship traveled up the Hudson River at five miles per hour. Soon, massive cargo ships were built for ocean sailing. Turnpikes and roads were built, as well as canals. These great leaps in transportation truly made the industrial revolution revolutionary.

Robert Fulton's Steamboat Clermont (http://www.cardcow.com/images/set64/card00301_fr.jpg)

Another thing that helped the revolution on it's way were resources. Britain's large coal supply helped to power steam engines. The need for coal and iron to be mined gave people jobs other than farming. Capital can also be described as a resource. Capital, or wealth, allowed technology to pave the way for innovation. The British economy prospered in the 1600s and 1700s from trade, and this gave the business class a chance to invest in new enterprises, allowing the industrial revolution to happen. Finally, cotton became popular, and demand for cotton clothes, and all textiles, increased. The demand for resources are another that the Industrial Revolution was revolutionary.

A Google A Day Keeps the Tree Octopi Away

The class activities described in the following blog post were meant to teach the class how to search in an efficient way and use online resources responsibly.
Within the past ten years, Google has become a part of nearly everyone's everyday lives. "Google it" has become a phrase uttered whenever an difficult question arises. Most people probably make at least one Google a day, whether it is to access a website, their email, ask a question, or find a picture or video. Google now provides a trivia service called "A Google A Day" which asks a question, and the user searches the Google search engine to look for the answer. The question, however, has multiple components, making it impossible for the user to just look up the question. They must find out the answers to each component, then answer the question. This concept can be better explained by simply viewing a question at the website. In class, we used this game to learn how to search effectively and use keywords, rather than just typing in a question. It was a fun activity, but some questions posed were very difficult to find the answer to. For one question, I found an answer, but the source that I found it from had apparently misspelled it, and therefore Google did not accept it. I liked the feature of "Deja Google", which prevented spoilers from getting into the Google A Day search results. One thing I learned from this activity is how to use keywords effectively.

Accuracy, Authenticity, and Reliability are all measures of whether or not to use an online source. Accuracy describes the quality of information being clear, concise, precise, and on point. Authenticity describes the source being official, and reliability means the source is dependable and consistent. In class we viewed a website with pages devoted to the The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus.

Tree Octopus, http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/treeocto.jpg

The website seemed lovely, until you realize that the information is all false; the Tree Octopus doesn't exist. The main page of the website says it is "Your Source for Conspiracies and Other Distractions", which is not very scholarly. While the source may have been accurate and reliable, it was not authentic, invalidating its other two traits.  This source is simply an internet hoax, and makes an excellent example for a media literacy lesson.

Great Teachers Make Great Students

Welcome to my blog! I’m Matt Baynes, a sophomore at Reading Memorial High School. I will be posting as a part of my history class.

We all have a teacher that stands out in our mind as great. But what is it about them that makes them so great? I believe that great teachers are defined by their eagerness to teach their students, and their passion for the subject they are teaching. Great teachers I have had, or currently have, all want their students to become the best they can be. The great teachers I know all have a passion for what they teach, and want to spread their love for the subject by passing on that passion to their students. Students can only feel passionate about a subject if they enjoy it, so the teacher has to make the students want to be in their class. The class needs to be entertaining, but the students must still learn.  A student with a great teacher wants to learn, because the teacher is excited to help them learn, and passes on this excitement. To support me this year, I would like my teacher to give us all the information we need to explore further into the world of history as students.

“John Green”, http://litreactor.com/columns/ya-superstar-john-green.

Vlogger and author John Green recently released an open letter video directed towards students going into school. In this video he discuss the duty of students to use their education to do great things.I agree with him. With the great opportunity we are given in our education, it is a shame to waste it. This year I have several goals. I am taking two art classes this year: Figure Studio and Graphic Design. I would like to better myself as an artist in these classes, and especially learn graphic design, as that is a potential career choice of mine. I would also like to maintain B averages or higher in all my classes. I will reach these goals by concentration, focus, and hard work, as well as working with great teachers.

John Green's Open Letter to Students