Jamestown DBQ

Jamestown seemed at first to be a promise of new life and a new, safe lifestyle for all. However, this was not the case, because of the 110 original settlers, only 40 survived. The reason the English came to the Americas is to establish the first permanent settlement. A group of investors called The Virginia Company. The first settlers were men of the ages 17-35. Most were lower classmen, more so poor people. Early Jamestown was a colonization of English people in America that lasted from 1607 to 1611. What is so confusing about this is why so many of the colonists died in such a short period of time.

One of the first causes of death in the Jamestown were environmental issues. One of the issues was that when the English settled, they did not settle far enough upstream. When high tide arrived, it sometimes mixed with the freshwater in the stream, creating brackish water. Brackish water causes poor health if people used it as their water supply. Also, they happened to land in it’s longest unbroken period of drought. Without rainfall, it was very difficult to impossible to water crops for food. Brackish water and lack of rainfall were a detriment to the settlers and the environment during the years 1607 to 1611.

Another cause of death in early Jamestown was the lack of settler skills. One of the issues is that, in 1607, out of the 110 settlers that traveled, 82 of them had occupations, but 47 of them were ‘gentlemen’. That is over 55% of the total people with an occupation. ‘Gentlemen’ were people born of wealth who were not used to working with their hands or working at all. Another problem is that there were no females whatsoever in both trips in 1607 and 1608. Females had many important jobs in the community, which were caring for the young in homes, creating clothing and furniture, and also for medical care. Another thing the English lacked was proper skills of organizing a trade and being civil. “In 1609 Francis West and 36 men sailed up the Chesapeake Bay to try to trade for corn with the Patawomeke Indians…” Although it sounds as if the English meant for a peaceful trade, the document also states this: “Though West was able to load his small ship with grain, the success involved ‘some harshe and Crewell dealinge by cutting of towe of the salvages heads and other extremetyes.’” It seems the English took to violence rather than negotiating or acting civil.

One last reason the English died so quickly was because of their relationships with the natives. In the previous statement, when the English were confronted with a trade of corn, they responded with violence and ended up decapitating two of them and dismembering many others. There is no evidence in the documents to support why the English used force rather than peaceful trade. Perhaps they used force because they didn’t understand the Indians and did not know how to interact with them in any other way. The surviving Indians would most likely want revenge on the people who killed their own and took their crops forcefully.

Although Jamestown seemed as if nothing could go wrong, many things obviously did. There were many, many issues in the surrounding environment, including brackish water and water with festering waste. Another problem was how poorly their settler skills were. 55% of people who had occupations were gentlemen, who had no skills with labor whatsoever. Finally, the way they treated the Natives was very poor, and the Natives most likely tried to retaliate against them and take revenge. The English were basically overall terrible and had no settler skills, lived in a bad environment, and treated the Natives poorly.

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

Adapted from “The Lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts,” Science, April 24, 1998.

Adapted from John Smith , The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, Book III, 1624.

Ivor Noel Hume, The Virginia Adventure, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.

The Conquistadors

There are many sides and differences to the first meeting of Moctezuma and Cortes. However, what really happened, and what was meant is much different than what was recorded in textbooks, and many other documents written by historians. We, as a class, read 4 passages--a textbook passage, and 3 documents written by professional historians. First, the textbook excerpt gives an excerpt on the document on the arrival of Cortes. In class, we read a set of questions determining what the document was about, and what it was stating had happened. We then looked at the other three documents, and it was clear that the textbook document was very different from the other three documents, written by professional historians and first-hand sources.

Upon the arrival of the Spanish, according to the textbook edition, the Aztec, apparently very much Moctezuma, greeted Cortes with great respect, great honor, and believed him to be a god. They offered him lots of gold, and even the throne. They told him he resembled their god Quetzalcoatl, and  told him he was their true, indisputable leader. However, this is not really what happened. When the Spanish and Cortes arrived, Moctezuma did welcome them with warmth, and gave them gold and all those things, but this was not his true intention. It was a part of the Aztec culture to say the opposite of what you actually mean when meeting new people, as a way of respecting them. Cortes misinterpreted this, as he had no way of knowing that this was their custom.

Reading these different documents and learning the differences in the documents, I learned the severe importance of knowing the perspective and bias of each story. I learned that without doing research on the author or the background of that author, you may be given either false or biased information. For example, when reading the textbook’s document, I, at first, believed the information I was reading. I thought it was a bit weird, almost crazy, that Moctezuma would believe him to be their God and true ruler. Once doing more research and reading the other documents, I learned that the textbook information was either biased or false, and that I should always do research to answer my questions.

The Columbian Exchange

The Columbian Exchange was the exchange of ideas, foods, crops, people, animals, and cultures between the New World and the Old World after the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492. It started after Columbus’ first expedition to America in 1492. From then on, each expedition was working bringing more newer ideas to the country at a time.

Throughout this whole exchange, there were moments of suffering, but also benefits. Many benefits. Mostly, the benefits were towards the Old World, or Europe and the African allies. One of the great benefits was the transfer of cash crops such as tobacco and cacao beans. They also enslaved lots of people, and brought them back to the Old World.

Although there was success for the Old World, there was unfortunately more suffering for the New World. So much disease was spread so quickly that an estimated 90% of the population was killed. The rest were unable to help themselves, so they suffered. The Europeans, unknowing that it was their diseases that spread to the Americas, called the Natives weak, and incompetent.

The Columbian Exchange, although it seemed to be a success for all, was really an “unequal exchange”. It was an unequal exchange because, although the Old World and the New World both received very good crops and items, the Old World receiving tobacco, cacao beans, tomatoes, and turkey, and the New World receiving livestock, citrus fruits, sugar cane, and the honeybee, the Old World gave the New World something worse: Disease. Horrible diseases such as smallpox, influenza, and malaria infected and killed an estimated 90% of the population. The remaining were unable to help themselves. So, although it may seem otherwise, the Columbian Exchange was certainly the Unequal Exchange.

Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue

Christopher Columbus, at first, may seem like the person we all think we know him to have been; the wonderful explorer who discovered the new world, known as America, that we live in today. However, that was not the case whatsoever. Columbus, while he was an explorer, did not intend to discover America, nor did he name it America. Columbus thought he had landed in the continent near India, and that the Natives living there were, in fact, Indians. His objective was to find gold, and he did whatever he had to in order to achieve that goal. He enslaved the Native people against their will, forced them to do hard labor, and killed them for sport, when they had been so nice to him and had saved him. He was brutal, and was hungry and desperate to bring gold back to the king and queen of Spain.

I believed people should not continue to celebrate a holiday in his name anymore. He was not at all how our teachers said he was. He was a brute, and did whatever he wanted to achieve his goal of finding gold. He enslaved, beat, possibly tortured, and killed the Natives for sport. He not only unintentionally found the Americas, but they were not named after him in any way. He was not even the first explorer to land on the supposed “New World”. His intentions were for the greed of his own personal gain, and not to benefit the knowledge of the world of any of those around him. For those reasons, I believe Christopher Columbus day is a lie and should not be celebrated anymore.

Scientific Revolution

The scientific revolution was a great change in the way science and scientists viewed things, such as the human body and how it works. It started with the scientific method. The scientific method was a 6 step method on how to test and/or prove a theory you may have. Back in the 1500's, a new, popular exploration that was happening was the study of astronomy. Two very important astronomers were Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei. Copernicus was a very important astronomer because he was the first to discover that the solar system was a heliocentric one. The idea was revolutionary, even though it went against the beliefs and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Galileo redefined those discoveries by basing it off of Copernicus'. He used a large telescope, and discovered 4 moons of Jupiter, and even more so how the moons and the planets orbited. Back then, not only was the belief of how the world worked different, but chemistry and medicine worked differently too. Robert Boyle was a chemist. He created the formula pv=k, and also the air pump. He discovered the process of combustion, and also made the principles of observing the world around you. Leonardo da Vinci was a surgeon who dissected 30 deceased bodies to learn more about their muscles, brain, lungs, and heart. It didn't go over well with the Roman Catholic Church, but it did play a major role in how we view our bodies today. Throughout the lives of all these astronomers, chemists, and medics, the Roman Catholic Church stayed in one place. They stuck to their beliefs that the earth stayed immobile, while all other bodies in the universe revolved around it. The discoveries that chemists and surgeons such as Andreas Vesalius and Robert Boyle were against the church's discoveries, teachings, and beliefs, so they tried their hardest to cover up their stories and discoveries, however, the word spread too fast, and many people knew before long. Being a merchant for da Vinci, Vesaluis, and William Harvey themselves, I have learned much about their discoveries.

When I first heard about the spreading news about Leonardo da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius and William Harvey and their discoveries on the human body, I was very critical. Not only was what they were doing going against the Church, but they were using actual corpses! It sounded completely disgusting and immoral. I didn't know what else to feel except angry, and disgusted. But, after some further research, I realized that the church was wrong, and was using too much force in trying to stop this and cover this up. The more I learned about this, the more fascinated I became in their study of the human body. Becoming more and more intrigued, I discovered that Vesalius had written a book called de Humani corporis fabrica. It contained all sorts of findings and discoveries on the human body. The church made it seem as if only they were right, all the time, and anyone who went against their teachings or beliefs were to be punished. However, it seemed to me that what da Vinci and Vesalius were doing wasn't doing any harm; in fact, it seemed to be doing good. Vesalius was appointed the lead physician of the holy Roman emperor Charles V. So why was it so bad, if it was gaining him special attention and giving him roles of higher importance?

cover image of Andreas Vesalius' "de Humani corporis fabrica"

Printing Press during the Renaissance

Before the reformation, the spread of news around Europe was very slow, and often wasn’t very successful. However, after the printing press was invented, the spread of ideas and information became a lot easier, and a lot more successful. Many more copies of books were printed much more quickly, and many people learned to read this way. The spread of the reformation and any information became a lot more possible after the invention of the printing press.

This is a representation of a modern-day representation of how people would communicate their information in the days of the renaissance. This is through the eyes of two ordinary people, and it is an act of fiction.

@calvinismguy News is spreading that Protestantism has a new branch, called Calvinism! #johncalvin #weird #interested

@catholiccivilian I know, it predetermines whether or not you go to heaven or not. But, work hard and you might prove that you’re heaven-bound! #heaven #excited #hardworking

@calvinismguy It is my lifelong dream to get into heaven, I have sinned many times in the past. I should consider Calvinism…#calvinism #hopeful

@henryfan123 Henry VIII just got married a second time… #unusual #desperate

@ihatehenry He’s just trying to get a boy child so he can have an heir. There’s nothing wrong with that! #henryisthebest #greatness

@henryfan123 Dude...word’s spreading he beheaded his wife...how is that okay in any way?! #insane #crazy #hell-bound

Martin Luther and the Reformation

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk, born in 1483 and died in 1546. Martin Luther was originally discomforted and challenged the Roman Catholic Church because the Church was selling indulgences, or a way to buy yourself into heaven. Martin believed that the Church was wrong in doing this, and sent a letter explaining himself.  “He was troubled by the selling of indulgences so he mailed a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz to explain his position.” He strongly believed, at first, that the message the church was trying to send was not just to gain money, but one of much more spiritual value too. However, once he researched more, and looked into the topic, he realized what the church was really trying to accomplish.

I believe, at first, that his intentions were for the good of the people. At first, he was very polite, almost timid, but after he had gained a following, and after many people were supporting him, he became more powerful, and more strong in his words. He was supported by the people, so he decided to try harder for them and make a lasting impression. I also believe that Martin was more concerned with spiritual reforms in the church than with the peasants. First, Luther was more involved with the church long-term, and that was his life mission. The peasants just became to be a greater issue once he had given that document, the An Admonition to Peace. The peasants decided to revolt against the church, and Luther decided to take care of it quickly, to keep the peace and the church alive. When he issued the Against the Murderous, Thieving Peasants, it became clear where he was placed in the matter.

The Medici and Machiavelli

This week we studied the Medici and Machiavelli. Our essential question was “How did new wealth in Florence contribute to new ideas during the Renaissance?” In class, we discussed the question, watched videos, and read documents on the Medici family and Machiavelli during the Renaissance. We learned about patronage, and how it was artists that were paid to complete works of art in the homes of the families that paid them. We discussed the Medici family, and their rise to be the most powerful and most wealthy family in all of Florence. They sponsored someone who aspired to be pope, and the pope made the Medici bank the head bank of Florence. We also talked about Machiavelli, and how he wrote a book called “The Prince” when he got banished, to try to win back his political career, but it was too late, and it failed.

It is important for a prince to spend all of his time studying the art of war because “it is the sole art that belongs to him who rules”, or, it is the key art of a true ruler. It is not only, as he states, the force that upholds those who are true, born princes, but it allows men to rise up through the ranks. By studying war and knowing it well he could be well-respected, and well at ease knowing these skills. By being lazy and not studying war, you will grow to be despised and even more lazy.

Overall, I don’t agree with Machiavelli’s ideas on leadership. It seems his idea of a good leader is a strong one, who studies war and martial arts. Also, he states that, of the two, it is better to be feared than to be loved. I don’t think many leaders nowadays follow his principle of leadership, because a good leader is loved, not feared. Men during this generation would not follow this, because morals of peace, not war, is being spread around.

Link to the excerpts: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/prince-excerp.asp

The Black Death

     So, during this lesson we learned about the Black Death. We learned what time period it took place during, the effects it had on the millions of people involved, and how we could tell which sources are legitimate and which ones aren't.
     First, I'm going to introduce the Florentine Chronicle article. It is a short passage giving us a bit of information on the horrors of the Black Death. It was written sometime between the 1370's and the 1380's. The author was a man named di Coppo di Stefano Buonaiuti, who lived from 1336 to about 1390. The Chronicle is a reliable source because he was a primary source from the Black Death, so he may have had first-hand experience with it. It may not be reliable because he was only about 2 when the height of the plague was around. I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I remember barely anything from when I was 2 years old, unless an adult has told me something.

    The second article I'm telling you about is the Decameron article. It was written by a man named Boccaccio in 1348, who was alive and witnessed the Black Death. Now, this article may be believable because he was alive during the Black Death, and was an old enough age to be able to remember the horrible accounts that were witnessed. This may not be believable as well because it is a work of fiction; otherwise it is not real. It is a fake documentation of the Black Death based off of this man's witnesses, and it probably contains a lot of false information.

     Now, after reading through and analyzing both articles, I have to conclude that the Florentine Chronicle is the more accurate and believable article. I believe this because, first off, the Decameron is a fictional work. I know it was based off of real witnesses, but non-fictional works are a lot more trustable than a work of fiction. The Chronicle is more trustable because it tells brief instances of the horrors from a primary source.

Welcome!

    Hello! My name is Liam. I am the owner of the blog that you are reading right now. I am a student in 9th grade of high school, so do not expect me to be a high-class historian that will blow your mind with awesome facts. I’m just a normal kid who will enjoy writing blogs!

    First off, let me just say that I have had a lot of teachers. Most of them I have liked, but there have been a few that never were my favorite. So, I do have my own little idea of what the ideal great teacher is. First off, something that makes a teacher great is lots of interaction and activities. I really like a teacher that likes to interact with his/her students almost daily. One of my favorite teachers from the past was really energetic with his students, and he loved to be loud and sometimes crazy. But I like crazy. My other favorite teacher spoke very loudly and clearly so I could hear everything she said. She also taught me a very catchy phrase, and it helps me to remember to speak up when talking. One thing I’d really love this year is lots of time to interact with classmates, and to be able to learn from them as well as the teacher.

    So, on what John Green said about it being our duty to use our education to do great things, I agree, to a certain extent. You should use your education to do great things, but those things shouldn’t be anything that’s required of you; you should choose what great things you want to pursue. I have some goals for myself; however, they’re just short-term goals for this year. I hope to socialize more, to be a larger member of my community. Obviously upholding good grades are a given; I think that’s everybody’s goal. I think I’m going to reach my goals this year by putting myself out there and starting conversations with people I may not even know. I plan to study more, and work hard on completing my homework. So anyway, welcome to my blog, and I hope you like it here!