The Affair of the Diamond Necklace

This letter has to do with a project we were doing in our class. The project mainly consists of the Affair of the Diamond Necklace which includes Marie Antoinette as the main culprit. The letter can and will explain about the problem with this affair.

Dear French editor,

This is an outrage! Have your heard what our crazy Queen has been doing? She is living up her life while we die in vain! Wasting all the money we could be getting, on some piece of jewelry. She is more concerned with her goods and looks than the well being of the French people. We should be spending money for necessity rather than want.

Just this week I lost another one of my family members. They died of starvation because we good not afford any food. This injustice must stop!

She doesn't deserve the position of the queen. The queen should care about the country and take care of us people rather than letting us fend for ourselves. It's the monarchy like The Queen that leave us in this position.

If you haven't heard the story, I heard from many people that The Queen was behind all the letters and the thievery involving Cardinal de Rohan. She and the Cardinal were corresponding to secretly gain money for the necklace. It was not even meant for Marie in the first place. She gave the Cardinal false hopes by  " romantically" being with him. This is not acceptable, he is a leader of the church and she is married. Just because she can't get pregnant doesn't mean she can sleep with everybody she wants to. If she thinks that she can cheat on her husband and purchase lavish goods under the nose of the French people, then she has got another thing coming

The fact that she would do it in secret just to make sure that we couldn't find out is horrid. She already lives lavishly with big feasts and fancy clothing. Why does she need more? The necklace wasn't even made for her. It was ordered by Louis XV for his mistress. Why does she think that she can own it and sell it off for more money?

We deserve every dollar she gets from her selling the diamonds from the necklace. She has been taking the many diamonds off the necklace to trade with other places. It is so rude that she would take someone's hard work and give it all away. I hope she realizes how many people she is letting down, the whole country. The people of France deserve better than that scum from Austria.

                                                                                      Sincerely,

                                                                                      Anonymous Third Estate Member

http://www.marie-antoinette.org/articles/diamondnecklace/

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Diamond_Necklace

Washington's Leadership

A good leader is someone who is responsible, kind and dependable.Washington was a good leader at the Siege of Boston. He was a good leader in the siege because he was able to stealthy take a whole bunch of cannons and put the to good use. He made it possibly for his men to have hope that they might actually be able to win. He easily made the British leave the place that they were at.

One part where he is not showing good leadership was his strict leadership. Washington had this one guy get lashes just because he stole some food from another soldier. But then he asks for help from his fellow soldiers and he gets shot because Washington thought he was going to mutiny against him. Washington did not care about the fellow. He only care about stopping mutinies and keeping himself safe instead of just listening to a poor persons word. He wasn't nice and he shortened the peoples food down. They were starving and dying of thirst

I do not think that Washington was a good leader because his soldiers couldn't even rely on him to supply the with things that they need. He kills innocent people when he hears the word mutiny. He should not have been able to command that army because he was basically leading them to death, meaning he put them in harsh conditions

The Break Up Between England and the Americans

The Declaration of Independence, the most famous break up letter of all time! It’s kinda funny really. The resemblance between the Declaration and a break up letter. Both involve someone or many people leaving something, like a country (England) and they both involve something that has to do with betrayal.

The preamble of the Declaration of Independence, which explains that the Americans have the right to be treated well in their relationship with King George. The preamble also relates Enlightenment philosophy to the American colonists' situation in many ways. Some ways it relates to Enlightenment philosophy is when it mentions "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..", it is referring to natural rights which are rights that are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. 

A grievance is a real or imagined wrong or other cause for complaint or protest, especially unfair treatment, something that the Declaration has a lot of. The colonists included them in the Declaration because they weren't getting treated well by the King. Like a break up, the put in the things that the king did that wasn't very nice. “Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” He made the colonists house his soldiers when they really didn't want to but yet he didn't care at all. "He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance..." He refused to let any of the governors pass laws that were important to the people which isn't really good. People need those laws. If they didn't have them then all hell would break loose. All these grievances pointed out the bad side of the King, how he wasn't nice to the Americans in anyway. He put Acts on them and everything. But the Declaration ended it all.

http://patriotsline.com/how-well-do-you-actually-know-the-declaration-of-independence/the-declaration-of-independence-the-grievances/

Social Contract

A social contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Hobbes created the social contract so that people can give up some of their liberty for some common security. John Locke on the other hand was a little bit different. He expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.
There were many ups and downs to making our own social contract. It was kinda hard because we didn't really think through different things that could possibly happen with the rules if we were in that time. There were perks to the whole main process of making the rules though. It was fun to think of different rules and you really feel as though you are in charge of a small colony or something. It was kinda easy to think of the question because all you have to do is think of a consequence and add something before it and then you have a pretty solid rule. Overall though, I though it was very easy and very fun.
We had to change a few of the rules. From our classmates feedback...some of our rules seemed to easy and didn't involve much punishment  and didn't invoke fear. Most of our rules had to do with helping others which not many people had put bad feedback on. 

Delaware Colony

,

     In our most recent project, we were assigned to make an advertisement where we were trying to get people to come to one of the 13 colonies. We got split into different small groups and we had to make a video that includes Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in a way to get more people to come to the colony.The colony that my partners and I got assigned was Delaware.We got a few days to research info on our colony and come up with a good claim on why people should join the colony. Finally, we got pictures, put them in the video, edited it and presented it to the class for them to take notes on it. 
     In our research, we found out many interesting things. The Dutch founded the first European settlement in Delaware atLewes (then called Zwaanendael) in 1631. They quickly set up a trade in beaver furs with the Native Americans, who within a short time raided and destroyed the settlement after a disagreement between the two groups. A more permanent settlement was not established until 1638 by Swedes at Fort Christina (now Wilmington) as part of their colony of New Sweden; they reputedly erected America’s first log cabins there. The economy of the colony mainly focused on wheat, milling, lumber and furs. Performed sugar refining, distilling, trade and ship building. Delaware was not focused on one religion, they allowed anyone with their own beliefs to join the colon as they wish. Also, the leader, William Penn made it a good point that they should have a good relationship with the natives and he believed that the English should compensate native Americans for their land.
    There were three appeals that we were told to use in our projects- Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. To appeal to Ethos, you use character and ethics when you persuade something. You basically are helping the reader see that the author is reliable,trustworthy, respectful and credible. To appeal to Pathos, you use emotions to persuade. You use emotionally loaded language, vivid descriptions,  emotional examples, anecdotes, testimonies, or narratives about emotional experiences or events, figurative language and emotional tone (humor, sarcasm, disappointment, excitement, etc.) And lastly, to appeal to Logos you use logical evidence. You use theories / scientific facts and other things. In our project we used Pathos and Logos. We used phrases that would use emotions to persuade people and we used actually facts to also persuade people. Out of all of those, Pathos is the most important one because it is used to effect people emotions to persuade them.
   

Atahualpa and the Bible

  The questions, what really happened when Atahualpa was presented with the Bible by the Spanish and why do sources tell different versions of the story? In class we read through different sources to see what actually happened when Atahualpa saw the bible and many sources did not have the same info while some did have the same info.
         The answer to the question, what really happened when Atahualpa was presented with the Bible by the Spanish, is scattered throughout the things we read. One of the things we read said something completely different than the other two things that we read. It states "Atahualpa held the book to his ear and listened to it. When the book didn’t speak, he threw it on the ground". This came from a textbook passage which not everything from it is correct. The other documents said that he tried to open it then threw it down, they did not say that he put it up to his ear to try to listen to it. The sources tell different versions or the story because of different information they get. The textbook probably changed what it was actually supposed to say while the other documents told what actually happened.
         I have learned many important things about the importance of knowing the perspective and bias of each source in history. It all depends on who wrote them and when they were written. Like in the textbook passage,. That was made way way way after the thing with Atahualpa and the Bible ever happened. But with the other sources, they were made before the textbook passage and can be found more believable.

New World VS Old World

    The Columbian exchange was a period of cultural and biological exchanges between the New and Old Worlds. Exchanges of plants, animals, diseases and technology transformed European and Native American ways of life. Beginning after Columbus' discovery in 1492 the exchange lasted throughout the years of expansion and discovery.
    The Old World benefited the most during this time. For them, it was like heaven. Getting all that they wanted just by trading. They got cash crops including sugar and tobacco. They also traded with other places and giving them horses and other domesticated animals. Although the only problem was what they left behind for the New World when they traded.
     The New World suffered a lot during the Columbian exchange because of the Old World. The Old World passed on many diseases to the New World that were very deadly. Many people died from the smallpox and they had no way of getting rid of it. The measles also played a part I'm it too. This lead to over 90% of the population dying which lead to the name "The Great Dying".
      Between getting terrible diseases and getting cash crops like tobacco and sugar, the Old World benefited the most while the New World suffered from the deadly diseases the Old World passed on to them. Because of the Old World, nearly all of the population in the New World died from the diseases.