Ethnocentricity Blog Post

The aboriginals were stereotyped by the British as natives who didn't have the capability to reason or act rationally. This was shown in several incidents through the word choice the British had chosen when they were describing the First Australians in Bennelong's obituary. It is stated in the obituary that Bennelong's form that he was born into by nature, being the aboriginal way of life, was savage. The ethnocentricity of the British played a big part in starting the conflicts between them and the aboriginals. Since they viewed the aboriginals as savage, the British came to believe that they're culture and style of living were better and more civilized. This led to the belief that the aboriginals were inferior to the British, and were basically looked down upon. They were disregarded of any type of any human emotions, and that they're opinions did not matter. As time passed, their relationship started to develop for the worse, and eventually led to several conflicts between the two. An example of one of these conflicts was when the colonists ravaged the lands and got rid of all kinds of nature to build their own buildings. Nature played a very important role in the aboriginal's culture, and when the British simply got rid of it without asking, they felt offended and mistreated. One of the aboriginals felt so offended by this, he set fire to the colonist's crops. Another conflict was when one British colonist was hunting aboriginals for sport, due to his disregard for they're emotions. This led to the aboriginal's to seek revenge and killed him as a form of retribution. This enraged the British colonists, and eventually led to massacres of aboriginals in order to punish everyone who took part in the murder. Overall I think that the majority of the conflicts that were raised was due to the British's ignorance and lack of respect for the natives. They regarded them as inhuman, and they didn't take time to think about how the aboriginals would feel if they did something that might significantly affect their country, or culture.

Julius Caesar Performance Assessment.

For the performance assessment, I have chosen what I think to be the one of the most significant moments during the play, the following passage is that specific moment, which can be found in Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 12-34.

"Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended. I pause for a reply."

The context of this passage is during Brutus's speech, and he is is hoping that the crowd would be able understand his position, and not rebel against him, and through his persuasive and authoritative speech, he was able to do so. He explains to the crowd the differences between having Caesar alive and dead, and was able to win the crowd over in the end.

I believe this is an important scene during the play because Brutus explains his intentions for murdering Caesar to the crowd, and tries to make his hopes and predictions on how the crowd would see them as purgers, and not murderers come true. This speech characterizes Brutus as noble, and devoted to his country, and it becomes obvious that Brutus killed for the better of Rome, not out of jealousy and hatred, meaning he was patriotic. This is also significant because it just goes to show how fickle and ignorant roman citizens could be, at one point were enraged about Caesar's death, and after a bit of flattering, they all ended up agreeing that Caesar was a tyrant and deserved to have died. They changed they're minds quickly without thinking of any of the good things that Caesar has accomplished. In addition, since we know at this point that Antony is actually against the conspirators, it probably means that he would be able to convince the city of Rome against Brutus during his speech.

Learning Profile Blogspot Post

I learn best when I focus on the details within a visual and need to see, speak and or write in order to learn to my fullest potential. I prefer structured learning and organized schedules when it comes to learning new information or revising over certain topics. If I were to see a schedule on the board in the beginning of class, I would read through every one of the activities. When I do this, it makes me feel more comfortable to be able to know what’s going to happen next, and allows me to be able to work better.

I need to sit at the right side of the room to be able to hear the instructions from the statement's more clearly due to my left dominant ear. I need to be able to properly assess an entire picture. For example, I would have to sometimes learn to see the 'forest' apart from 'many trees'. This would enable me to see thing's from an entire perspective out of the whole picture.

Certain strategies to help me learn better are for me to be able to carefully plan out what I am going to do for a certain class or homework. This would help because I tend to prefer linear learning, and if I am able to stick to this plan, I would be able to work better, and faster.

I would like my teacher’s to know that I tend to space out when I work in class, and when I do my homework, so whenever I look like I’m not paying attention or daydreaming, I am actually listening carefully and contemplating each instruction given to me so that I may better understand how the activity may help me.

This painting is named "The Ambassadors" and was painted by Hans Holbein The Younger in the year of 1533 with oil on canvas. This piece of art is a reflection of all the new found knowledge and forms of government during the Renaissance. The evidence in the painting which support my claim include, the many different instruments laid out on the table in the middle of the painting. This includes a celestial globe, a portable sundial, a book and a terrestrial globe. Another piece of evidence are the two men standing side by side on each side of the painting. These two men are portrayed in a way which presented power, control and that they were important. How I interpreted my evidence was looking at each piece of evidence, and asking myself, what does this do, or what is each's purpose in the world. By looking at all the item's they were all relatively similar in terms of how they are normally used to learn, the globes were meant to show the world, to study it. The sundial represented how in this time they were probably inspired by old greek knowledge to remodel it to be able to use shadows and the sun to tell the time. The book probably represented learning, in a sense how the printing press was just invented around that time, and the majority of the book's sold at that time were read to learn more about the world or math. Basically the main purpose of the item's in the painting was used to represent knowledge or education during the time of the Renaissance. The two people on each side of the painting, considering how they looked very powerfull, probably represent a debate between two city state's, or a partnership between the two. This is because I researched more about this painting, and these two men were identified to be two very important leaders or governers during the Renaissance, though the link between each two is unclear, I can only assume Hans Holbien has knew both of them, and decided to put them both in the same painting for the same purpose, the revolution of learning and education during the Renaissance.

Driving Forces Of The Renaissance

I think that trade and banking was one of the most important elements needed to be able to create what we know as the renaissance today. Trade and Banking allowed city states to earn money needed to flourish as a developing city. With money they were able to spend it on better architecture, and education, two of the things that changed Florence immensely throughout this time period. They were then able to set up trade routes with other countries by spending money on new technology, better suited to help them with everyday life.