Human Nature

When watching the film regarding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was one thing which particularly struck me. And I’m still trying to decide whose “fault”, or responsibility for what happened it was. So, I’m going to argue both sides. My question is: how did human nature intervene and effect people’s lives in New Orleans after the disaster? Human nature is defined as the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humankind (Wikipedia). This is exactly what was showcased and exercised in the film. On one hand, human nature has the distinct and powerful will to survive, and do whatever it takes in order to do so. This was developed early one in the course of the disaster, as people were desperately exploring and considering all possible measures by which to survive what was to come/what was happening. But, it really shined as countless people were in need of many resources essential to survive, and stranded with no help on the way or contact to the outer world. Because of such strong and devoted human nature, the natural thought was to go to stores and places which provided things that they could use to either make them more comfortable or to fulfill their survival needs (food, water, etc.). Therefore, human nature overrode all ideas of morals and ethics, and people raided and destroyed all stores and homes in which held things that they could use to better their situation. From looting many stores, humanity was using its surroundings in order to survive. This represents the side of human nature which can turn out to be more voracious, self-absorbed, and negative, but can be argued positive for reasons regarding the essence of human nature: survival (but the means to come across it). This raises the point, do the ends justify the means? This argues the more unfavorable side of the question and human nature as a whole, but there was one area of the film which argued the exact opposite. Right before its conclusion, it was heard and seen of a group of people (which turned into the entire city) singing a song of hope, faith, and good will. One man began singing “I’m Gonna Let it Shine!” and the entire feeling and emotion of the film was lifted to a positive, optimistic level. The population was coming together and sharing, coexisting, and surviving as one instead of as individuals. The sound of the music and the happiness which burst from the people’s faces when hearing and joining in changed the entire spirit of the film. The enormous change from devastated, dejected, hopeless, and solitariness feelings to hopeful, ethical, communal, and mere pleasure feelings highlighted what a small action can do to an entire community, and how that there was still some optimism and hope left throughout all of the destruction and devastation. This exemplifies the positive, ethical, and bright side of human nature, and shows that in the worst of times, human nature has the capability to change it and better it; literally and philosophically picking the world up form the rubble and rebuilding it. It shows that aside from crime and selfishness, human nature has a good and virtuous side to it, and it is determined which side is shown based solely on the individual. As the film represented both the criminal and exemplary sides of human nature, it was and still is up to humanity itself to live in accordance to the side of human nature which we all admire and aspire.

The Ripple Effect

After watching some of the film regarding Hurricane Katrina and the discussion of the crossovers which occur between different aspects of society, I asked the question: why does one element of society consistently conflict and effect other ones? Throughout the video, there were interviews of individuals who specialize in a specific area of life in society, and each step taken, no matter how big or how small, in one certain area of life goes on to make a huge effect on the present and future state of people’s lives. The government was the first area alluded to, as everyone immediately looked towards their elected officials to guide them in a secure, stable, and ultimately good direction to avoid as much destruction as possible. Politically, the disaster became known as something which ignited an enormous issue of trust and faithfulness in the government, in the sense that society did not know whether or not the government is doing the best thing for humanity, keeping all individual needs and desires in mind. But, it also was an opportunity for leaders and the government to take a stand and guide the community in a positive and agreeable direction. Unfortunately, that only occurred after the physical disaster hit society. After debate and much wasted time, the government imposed a mandatory evacuation to all citizens in New Orleans. This caused much controversy in society, as there were two sides of the community which were opposed to each other; one who knew they wanted to leave and acted straight away, and the ones who decided to sit it out and see how it would play out. This separation sprouted an entirely new struggle in issues of social class and economics. People who were eager and in favor of evacuating and relocating were most likely the ones with the most options, therefore having more money (usually). The ones who desired to stay and keep all of their resources and valuables with them were the ones who had a lack of money and class, like ones in the 9th Ward. This created a division in society, beginning issues of social class. The ones in the lower class began to make accusations to the upper classes, which then got politics involved in order to justly and equally allow each individual (regardless of class) to get the same chance of survival. Then, came issues of technology, as the levies which the city was structured upon, were destroyed. This initiated conflicts in the technological world, as people began to understand that technology can not always be trusted, and building a city on the foundation of a technology that without it, the city would not be standing, was not the most logical idea. Without the levies, the city would be flooded and part of the ocean; it was not meant for nature. This went back to involve technologists who created the levies to be questioned, the government for misinterpreting and not telling society the truth about the strength and structure of the levies, as well as social issues while the richer people have more options and resources that could be used to escape the disaster. It is a ripple effect; no matter what area of life something happens in, it goes back to involve and effect all others. I think this happens because cultures are so diverse, and the diversity originates from one central point: humanity. With everything expanding off one point, all other points merge and impact whatever follows or comes before it; therefore inserting elements of it into another. In other words, every individual part of society has something from all of the other parts as well. This forces each individual element to effect all other elements of society whenever it faces something challenging, new, positive, etc. Hurricane Katrina was not only an environmental disaster--it was a variety of disasters all beginning with a gust of wind.

Leadership in History

During our small group discussions while looking at the events of epoch three, a reoccurring theme was one of the significance of and the attachment that society had to a leader. Whether in a religious group, part of the military, or an individual in a nation, general populations tend to lean, agree with, and stand by a leader who keeps their interests in mind and shares common beliefs with them. I think that such loyalty to a leader stems off the principle of government. As realized earlier in history, societies have the need of a governing system to keep them in order, establish laws, implement a certain way of life, and maintain structure (whatever that may mean to the leader and population). But, leaders have one advantage over the general population: they can use the loyalty, trust, and authority which they are given against the very ones who gave it to them. Similar to history as a whole, what the general opinion is versus the opinion of the leader is likely to be extremely different. This causes major issues, as the common people revolt against their leader in order to instill what they want to see in society. Thus, begins a revolution. The French Revolution (1789-1799) is an ideal example of a nation being attached to a leader, but as the leader steered the nation in a direction contrary to what all others desired, a revolution beings to replace it with what they want to see. The Louis dynasty had ruled over France in an absolute monarchy for centuries, the greater French population of the Third Estate, consisting of roughly ninety seven percent of the entire French population, revolted against their leaders, King Louis XVI and the Nobility (Second Estate) and Clergy (First Estate) in order to allow them to have a say in government, gain economic status, and have the opportunity to play a major part in society. France was one of the first nations to undergo a massive transition in leadership. Replacing the monarch as the French source of leadership, the principle of nationalism was instituted into society. The Revolution essentially resulted with each citizen being the leader of the nation, causing the entire country to become the new leader of the nation; each individual’s allegiance and pride was now attached to the nation, which eventually formed a democratic system. Throughout history, democracies consistently result in stability and order across society, whereas monarchies and dictatorships have proven to be ineffective as a source of leadership because they aim  their society in a completely different direction than what everyone else longs for. So, I have come to the conclusion that all of society is better off when each individual is a leader in their own way, and when one has faith and relations with all others that they interact and share the world with, history takes a turn for the better. Leadership is just a tool used in order to achieve positive progression in society.

"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"

Previously, I have been thinking and blogging about progression in aspects of civilization, such as technology, politics, and economics. Although, when looking back through my notes, I began reading what I wrote about World War Two. I started to think about how it effected the usage of technology, the economic systems, how it made political figures look like, how it impacted religions worldwide, etc. But, when it comes to World War Two, and specifically the Holocaust, the idea of the progression of humanity itself caught my mind. With thoughts and ideas from last year when talking about the Holocaust, I began thinking about what could have influenced humanity to take such a turn for the worse during these times: why did mankind take everything which life provided them with and turn it into a weapon? How did the idea of mass destruction and discrimination develop through humanity? I feel like questions like these can only be answered by analyzing and explaining what led up to the event which fostered these ideas in the midst of mankind. Power is something which has controlled humanity forever. Lord John Acton said, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This exemplifies exactly what power does and can do to mankind. With the struggle for ultimate power in the world increasingly becoming a eminent battle, whenever an individual, nation, or country has the opportunity to get a hold of power and climb up the ladder to eventual ultimate power, they will take it. This is exactly what happened with Germany and Adolf Hitler. The immediate cause of World War Two/the Holocaust was World War One, and Germany’s great defeat and decline in authority and culture. Its instability and devastation called for an individual to grasp Germany by the reigns and take control over it to allow the country to develop back into what used to prominently stand. With Germany in need of a leader, Hitler climbed up to the top through a thoroughly easy process; it was simple for him to get to the top when everyone was expecting someone else to do what he did--no one and nothing stood in his way. But, after reviving German culture, ideals, and nationality, he kept on climbing up the ladder of power, and didn’t stop until he applied his idealistic society to reality, not only in Germany, but he aimed for the entire world. Taking total advantage of his power, he implemented the hatred and need to exterminate “races” which he felt caused issues to society. He went on to establishing an illustrious and forceful military, government, and lifestyle built solely upon his inhumane and racial ideas. He shook the world by surprise and abused his power to create his ideal world. Hitler’s growth and popularity was entirely rooted in his ambition and need for power; he was corrupted by power and drove the world down a huge decline. This is only one instance when someone took a power position and used it to their advantage rather than the greater population’s advantage, which is what power is meant for; to reshape society in a way that will make it superior to how it was before. Although, the meaning and details of “superior” are completely subjective to the individual in the position of power, which goes back to defines history--merely the study of an individual opinion and/or viewpoint.

For the Better and for the Worse

In class, we made it clear that declaring that something was significant supports nothing of an argument. In order to make a firm and substantial claim in history, one must argue the positive (what happened because of), rather than the negative (what wouldn’t have happened). In other words, one must always support their points with evidence in contrast to a hypothetical; show and do not tell. So, while reading epoch five, I narrowed it down to the one of the most significant events which happened in the past twenty-five or so years and decided to evaluate it like I would have in class. With the ever advancing system of technology that possesses the world, it has peaked in the past couple if years with inventions such as phones, computers, and more. But, perhaps the most influential and important technological step forward has been the creation and instillation of the internet in society. By 1995, the internet had been widespread and in several homes throughout the world, in addition to universities and schools which utilized it for educational purposes. It served many purposes and made the thousand’s of people’s lives remarkably easier. Purposes include economical, political, social, and for communication. Communication via the internet completely revolutionized the world and how people interacts with each other regardless of location. With communication being so easily accomplished, it allowed technologies, ideas, and materials to be handed over to anyone who asked for it. This has its pros and cons, as it can be used to improve many aspects of civilization, but can be extremely detrimental if the technology and potential power is placed in the wrong hands, which is precisely what happened leading up to and on September 11, 2001. Using the internet to communicate with international citizens who could help them with their task, as well as to educate themselves based on known facts and ideas on the internet, Al Qaeda got a hold of American war technologies and strategies. Also, through communicating with individuals through the internet, managed to obtain U.S. missile technologies and other battle products which the Americans utilized during war. With all of the technology, knowledge, and beliefs that Al Qaeda maintained over the years, they attacked and shook the United States of America by surprise on 9/11, flying two domestic planes into the World Trade Center in New York and one into the Pentagon building in Washington D.C. This attack, again, had its pros and cons. Obviously, the con was the extraordinary depression, grief, and sorrow to those who died and suffered as a result of the attacks, in addition to the corruptness and ever lasting installment of fear in society and the great effect on politics and the economy not only in America but worldwide. Despite all of the negativity, though, the dominant wake-up call to all nations of the world which pointed to the instability of society because of all the rapid and extreme advances in the world; technology was getting ahead of humanity. We can see a pattern here, of humanity’s ambition taking control over humanity’s rationale and senses. This pattern points to my claim that the progression in technology, specifically the internet, allowed humanity to take too big of a step forward that it was ready to process and reason out. It eventually led to the realization that technology needed to be stabilized and restricted to a level of security and safety. The internet can be considered one of most influential progressions in human-technology history because considering what happened as a result of it, humans were forced to revise society and technology, and make both as effectual and controlled as it prominently is today--and is still in development of becoming better, and worse.

Individual Meanings of History

Throughout the exploration of different textbooks and sources, I have come to the conclusion that the notation of the big event in history are generally agreed upon and the same, but, the perception of how and why they occurred tend to differ based on whatever particular bias or background the author has. Therefore, I have concluded that history is merely a combination of reporting of event with interjecting opinions. Even with primary sources in contrast to secondary sources, it is almost impossible to tell whether or not there is true objectivity from the reporter. The issue with secondary sources is that it relies on primary sources which are based on principles besides the facts, and the more that sources remove from the event, there becomes a greater diffusion of the information which makes it harder to differentiate between facts and opinions. When we examined the time period being reported on in the different texts, it becomes relatively clear that the amount of reporting that is done per time frame is largely influenced by the author attributes to that time period; if they think one time frame is more significant than the other, they will focus much more on what they feel the more prominent point is rather than one they feel is mostly ineffective to history. We are studying their interpretation of history to get a firm understanding of what they think is significant, and contrast their understanding with our own in order to establish a foundation on which to expand on. Similarly, when investigating world and regional coverage, there is a general agreement on the regions of the globe in which effective and historic events occurred. But, the detail in which the report goes into relies solely on the author’s interest and bias towards one specific area of the world where a historical event took place. The historian is the one who makes the decision about what is described beyond the general scope of things, and how the descriptions will be carried and divided out. Taking this all into account, as we study history, we have to understand that we are studying it secondhand and even more remotely; it is merely the study of another’s study of history, i.e. historiography. While we can be sure that most historical events actually happened, we can never be completely sure on how or why they happened. As a history student, the most important thing for us to keep in mind is to know that information that we are presented with will most likely be subjective rather than objective, and that we must look at the study of history macroscopically rather than microscopically, examining patterns and themes rather than just mere facts, as they relate to certain historical events. We study history to analyze the relationship  between present events and past historical events, and to make decisions about individually creating and shaping the future. In order to do so, we must look beyond the opinions and thoughts of other historians and develop an individual sense of what history means to us, why it is important to study, and use it to become part of history ourselves. 

Cultural Diffusion High and Low

When reading epoch one and two, I started to see a reoccurring theme that after a civilization takes a step forward in terms of culture (economy, politics, religion, etc.), another civilization always interrupts the new establishment and injects their indigenous culture’s characteristics to create something new; i.e. cultural diffusion. Establishments across Asia realized the need for a rising economic system, and implemented the significance of trade in society. Their central method of doing so was through the populated trade route of the Silk Road. On the Silk Road, trade is exactly what happened, although in different forms. Trade among cultures took place in every exchange someone made with each other, as intimate as a swap of goods, or as simple as looking at one’s clothing, or what they have in their hands or on their backs. When making a trade with someone, one can understand what people value in their civilizations, such as silver (if that is what their offering for higher prices). Also, when making a trade, cultural swaps occur when speaking with one another from different places. Trading could spark a conversation which goes into their ideals, beliefs, methods, etc., that the other individual participating in the trade can learn from and therefore understand parts of other cultures which were out there. Although, when just walking along, if someone, for example, coming from a semi-religious culture passes someone who is wearing an extensive and foreign-looking headdress, one could observe and potentially absorb a taste of what a religious culture is like. Answering the “how” part of the question is simple, but to answer whether or not cultural diffusion is a positive or negative aspect of history, one must weigh out the good and bad effects as a result of the merging of cultures. Obviously, interaction between civilizations did not turn out to benefit anyone as the Black Death swept across the region, beginning on the path of trade from city to city. Also, ideas of rebellion or war could have began while trading as conflicting opinions or agreeing ideas to act irrationally could of potentially arisen, and go on to begin bloodshed or debate that could shake the fundamentals of a culture and start panic. Although, there are many more positive effects on society that stem off from the culmination of different cultures. Without the exchanging of one’s goods, no individual could of easily acquired the materials needed in order to have, fix, or construct something that could significantly effect the greater population. Many inventions that revolutionized the world and were created during the era of intense trade among the Silk Road and other routes probably originated from materials, concepts, and hopes which found their way to be on the trade route; many creations, such as the printing press (in this case, a concept), was probably a collaboration of people from different civilizations. Individuals all came together while trading to informally share aspects of their culture which led to the discussing of their visionary concepts. From there, one only had to have the perseverance and knowledge to produce something which could considerably alter their own and other’s cultures. Cultural diffusion may have had its lows in spreading ideas, commodities, and disease which would go on to have a negative result on worldwide communities, but also had extraordinary highs. It went on to influence collaborations and partnerships that resulted in extremely positive outcomes that would eventually change the foundations of some cultures. 

Asking Questions

Mr. Moran told us that the best blogs begin with a question, usually one that starts with why or how. When I was reading the first epoch, I found it really interesting the coincidentally, in the specific cases of Egyptians and Greeks, the way that they found the best results in issues they were approached with or with identifying and developing a special subject (science, philosophy), was by asking questions like how do I go about this, or why is this important, or how will this effect others? So, I am wondering, why do we/the people in ancient civilizations ask questions? In Greek civilization, the roots for modern philosophy, politics, and science were planted. Also going back to what I wrote in the blog about the past versus history, an individual, or group of individuals, were ambitious enough to take a step forward and ask a question. For all we know, the complex and essential system of philosophy that we live by today all started with a simple question that someone asked when they were curious about the nature of knowledge and reality. Then, they investigated the endless amounts of answers for more information that they could then either add on to their ever growing answers, or use what they found to ask another question. It is likely that the Greeks asked the question, or something alike, “How can we create a balance between the government and greater population and stay away from the notion of a dictatorship?” With several inquiries, thought, and discussions, individuals must have come up with concepts that were then applied to civilization. In this case, democracy was established, and shaped the very formation of government by which we live by today, and a multitude of civilizations have throughout history. They took a chance, individualized themselves, and made history, all starting with asking a question. It’s similar to how planted a seed works; the seed is planted with one simple scoop out of the ground, being the initial question asked. But, as that seed expands and grows to become a plant, its roots below it grow and extend past each other and creates an entire web of added on questions which stemmed of from the primary question. Eventually, the plant will get to the point where it opens up an entirely new side of the subject, or life altogether, and prepares to release a completely new topic, a seed, which will grow into something bigger than anyone would ever imagine.

History and the Past

The past consists of every second that passes behind each individual.  It is nameless time which serves as merely something that points to a notion that "I was there," or "That happened back when". There is nothing that significantly altered time by which the individual remembers, or the worldwide community as a whole feels a considerable effect. Nothing in the past is something which changed the course of time behind the individual or will change the future ahead of the individual. Controversially, history is the concept that we use to identify notable occurrences which perviously happened which adjusted the way the individual sees the world presently. In other words, without history, there would be no change in individual viewpoints of the world and everything would just lie in the past--the ordinary being the limitation of each individual. With just the ordinary things, there would be no procession in the world.  History is the notion of change in and over time, and is made only when individuals (or a collaboration of) take a stand and make a revision in time to realize what they envision, in contrast to what they presently see. Without history, no change would be made, therefore the past would overrule the present, and serve as a restriction to what can be changed; history happens when people refuse to accept restrictions and go beyond the ordinary boundaries of the past. Whether for good or bad reasons, and resulting with a positive or negative effect on the greater world, history is something which takes the individual and overall world by surprise, and serves as an education experience for all to understand what to continue, avoid, or eliminate in the future; the past has no prevalent result in the future.