English Lesson 125 Paper

 "Why was this movie the first blockbuster?"

The Birth of A Nation was a predominantly controversial film, that attracted an enormous amount of attention from it's audience when it was released. Any casual observer of the movie will be apt to notice the racist aura it gives off. It's abundantly clear that it favors the violent Ku Klux Klan and the domination of the white population. Black men are seen as detestable, savage individuals, and particularly abusive towards white women. The 1915 film generated a positive response, although it was obviously a white entirety. The black population was completely outraged at the film, for what they believed was an unfair,false portrait of their race. The NAACP(National Association For the Advancement of Colored People) even made a futile attempt to have the film banned. This evidenced the extent of their anger, that they dared go to such drastic measures. 

I found the movie rather shocking, even though I was watching it as a modern-day viewer.  It certainly contains some very offensive elements to it,that many people would be rather horrified by. The bold outright promotion of the Klu Klux Klan is of course an aspect that is very repelling. This ruthless and merciless tribe ravaged the country, terrorizing those that hated and often murdering them. They were particularly known for their excessive hatred of colored people, who they were quick to torture and defile. Yet in the "Birth of a Nation" they are regarded as admirable heroes, figures who should be looked up to and respected. This, in my opinion, is contrary to the truth about this repulsive cult. They existed symbolic of fear and horror to those they 

Week 25 Review

1) What kinds of developments occurred during the renaissance of the twelfth century?
The renaissance of the twelfth century saw a powerful rebirth in a number of different areas, and helped to enlighten people regarding Roman literature.There was a figurative "waterfall'' of poetry and writing that took place throughout this time period, all composed in Latin. This ancient language would become universal and be adopted by every writer in their endeavors. It was easily understandable by the populace, and therefore was resorted to as an easy method of communication. There were a considerable amount of expansion in Greek philosophy and science as well. People could at long last appreciate these impressive works, as they were translated. Roman Law was brought into the spotlight, witnessing increased popularity after years of recession. Of course, there were naturally some negatives to this portion of the renaissance. The monarchs or rulers were quick to utilize the renewed engrossment, to their advantage. Roman law favored the primary control of the king. So this gave them the opportunity to exert more authority over their subjects, and dismiss the local system of feudalism. Another detrimental consequence of the renaissance was that writers relied too heavily on famous classics. Instead of doing their own research, they just lazily sourced Aristotle's work(for ex.) as a reference. Using ancient writer's ideas as a basis, they failed to do any original or unique work of their own. They regarded men like Galen, for instance as the only specialist in medical matters. This method of thinking was a path of ignorance, that left many men sorely lacking in real knowledge.



2) Discuss the origins and features of the university system in the High Middle Ages.
The university system of the middle ages was quite different from our modern-day one. It's rather unclear where it originated from, although some stemmed from Cathedral schools. Others started out as simply a group of students gathering together to study and discuss scholastic matters. There was a fixed program for study and a vivid distinction between undergraduate and graduate study. Undergraduates were typically those who finished 4 years of tutelage, while graduates mastered up to eight years. In order for a degree to be properly acclaimed, it had to be chartered by the pope or another powerful person(like the king). The recipient then had permission to lecture anywhere he desired in Europe. It was also the church's obligation to protect the universities and their students. The popes also assisted in paying the professor's salary and championing the university's liberty. 
Universities specialized in different areas of study, unlike the way in which they function today. The University of Paris was known for theology and Bologna was popular law.
Many people mistakenly think that the middle ages college system was excessively strict, not allowing students to express their personal beliefs. This was not the case however, as individuality was very much encouraged. Creative intellectual debates were a frequent event in university life. Students and faculty were regularly involved in scholastic discussions, where they could converse on many topics.

3)Write a brief overview of the life and work of Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas, commonly known as Saint Thomas Aquinas, was born in Siccily, in 1225. He has been a renown Catholic priest and writer for centuries, respected by people of all religions. He was the greatest theologian in the Catholic church and also an eminent scholastic philosopher. Having been educated by Albert the Great, he was equipped with valuable skills to teach in Naples, Rome, and other famous cities. During his long, prosperous career as an author, he wrote some 8 1/2 million words! This is an impressive, astounding accomplishment, to say the very least. Some of the books he fashioned included the Summa Theologica, Summa Contra Gentiles and On Being and Essence. Thomas certainly didn't lead a very easy life, at the beginning of his pursuits. He earnestly wanted to join the Dominican Order, as a budding 19 year old man. His family were extremely displeased with him, and ashamed that their son was endeavoring this. They were so strongly opposed to his choice, that they detained him to prevent it! 
Their ill intentions were only used by Thomas for good. During the awful year he spent in jail, he mastered the entire Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard. 
Finally his family gave up in trying to stop him from his dream and he was discharged from his home. This was the time period in which he was sent off to study with Albert the Great. It is hard to believe, but this learned, clever man was actually mocked in the school. His fellow peers christened him "The dumb ox" and found him very comical. His teacher(Albert the Great) was quick to sternly reprove them for their jesting. He warned them that one day everyone would eagerly listen to Aquinas's "bellowing".  
Thomas is well-known for being an advocate of faith and reason. He was adamant in his belief that they were compatible, and not conflicting forces. His theory was that God was a God of faith and reason. He gave us the ability to use our brains for human reasoning, but also the heart to believe in him. Aquinas taught that there were three fundamental types of knowledge. First,there was the knowledge that was attained by reason, and second there was knowledge that could be earned by divine revelation.The third type of knowledge could be found by reason and divine revelation. 
Thomas Aquinas has been revered and cherished fondly, as one of the world's most affluent authors. He had an equal amount of respect for both reason and faith. Because of this, he was able to impact both the heathen and the believer with his teachings.

English Lesson 120

"Is this novel a defense of liberty?"

In my opinion, Phillip Dru Administrator is not a defense of liberty at all. Throughout the book, I was very disgusted with the tyrannical, abominable behavior of Phillip.I think he was a manipulative, conniving man, who was only out to achieve selfish means. Ultimately, he craved all the control of the government, so he could maneuver it however he wished. The tactics he employed for this goal were clever and impressive, truth be told. But he didn't have the good of the people in mind, whatsoever, as he fervently claimed to. Instead, it was his own betterment that he was after. He wrenched the power from Selwyn, in the name of rescuing the United States. Phillip Dru was head of the committees, that based their accusations on a single dictograph recording!

An assistant had caught Senator Selwyn and Thor in a office discussion, wherein Selwyn revealed his part in the presidential election of James Rockland(Thor was the richest man in America) From this mild, harmless conversation, a reporter had gone crazy and caused public outrage at the senator. This, in turn had led to a good many Americans being thirsty for revenge, and the removal of the Senator. Phillip faked calmness, urging everyone to remain steady and reasonable, despite their apparent anger. Then he decides to become the head of a committee against Selwyn, and the commander of troops for a civil war. He leads a fiery rebellion, protesting the overpowering of the rich society.

Phillip was a passionate advocate for economic equality and an avid follower of Progressivism. With his friend, Gloria, he worked to "defend" his country against the schemes of the wealthy. In so doing this, his constant aim was the assistance of the poor. Yet he was too arrogant and condescending to even work and live among them first hand. He tried and I think failed miserably in sugarcoating the real reasons for this decision. He said that he was after the improvement of the majority, and not to impact individual people. My translation: he was superior over the poor, and didn't dare stoop to such impoverished living conditions.

This novel I personally believe is a perfect illustration of what usually happens, when someone tries to stop a dictator. In the midst of accomplishing what they presume right, they often transform into the very object of their hatred. I think this is exactly what takes place with Phillip. He doesn't think it's in the U.S.'s best interest to be ruled by Rockland, who was instated by Selwyn. But, of course, this meant that he would take the place of absolutist. Then he would be ruling and overtaking the government with his opinions and ideas for doing things. This was overall Phillip's plan, to personate his proposals and turn the country upside down for his benefit.

This is the desire of most men in politics, whether or not they are forthright about their intentions or pacify them. Phillip Dru rules with a corrupt nature, instating his policies with a iron will of determination and zeal. He institutes a system of total fascism, a pyramid where he sat atop oppressively.

Week 120 Review

1) What did the Albigensians believe?

The Albigensian doctrine originated with Manichaeism, which was an early forerunner for it. The basic core belief of the religion was that there were two gods, one of evil and one of good. It was commonly thought by followers of the teaching that spirit is good and matter is evil.The Albigensians harshly rejected anything made of matter, or corresponding to the physical,material world.They had the notion that the human body was only in essence a jail cell for the soul. They constantly strove to release the soul from the wicked cage it was enclosed in. Naturally, as a result of their odd ideology, they condemned the sacramental system. According to their conceptions, God would never impart his grace in the bodily form of baptism, for instance. The Albigensians also regarded animal and human reproduction as immoral and sinful. For example, a pregnant woman would be scorned by them, for she was bringing more matter into the world. The body was an impure thing, so anything that originated with it was also deemed so. Another concept that this strange cult detested was that of incarnation. Based on their theory, it was an impossibility for Christ to take on the detestable form of human flesh. 
The Albigensians generally spurned many of the precious core views at the heart of Christianity. 



2)What was the significance of King Philip IV of France?
King Phillip the fourth was the ruler of France from 1285-1314. He was an especially devout man, particularly in the aftermath of his wife's death,in 1305.He had a rather high and mighty opinion of himself, and the powers he believed to be attributed to his title. Phillip wanted to renew the Roman tradition of law, which would allow him more authority and influence. Therefore, he encompassed himself with lawyers who were knowledgable about Roman law and also the perquisites of the aristocracy. Phillip was insistent that every single French citizen should be entirely allegiant to him, disregarding whatever feudal loyalties they had. In this way, he was somewhat of a tyrant, in his excessive thirst for ultimate control. King Phillip was constantly organizing military campaigns, and coincidentally was always on the hunt for cash to fund them. He imposed high taxes on imports and exports in addition to a war tax, in order to have the money for his endeavors. His methods for obtaining his resources were rather unfair, such as robbing from Jews and bankers.Yet he somehow always managed to get what he wanted.
Phillip the Fair was largely note-worthy, because he overruled the jurisdiction of the papacy(the pope),exerting the dominating rule of the monarchy. His reign was a turning point in medieval times, as it would lead to a decrease in the pope's supremacy. Phillip achieved complete superiority over his kingdom, something many French rulers before him had failed to accomplish.


3)What was the significance of the Magna Carta?
The Magna Carta was important, because it established permanent limits and definite boundaries on the power of the king. It stated that everyone had to be accountable to the law, and had a responsibility to obey it no matter what. Thereby it restrained the British monarch from exercising cruelty and unfairness on his subjects. The Magna Carta also initiated that no free person could be put in jail, ostracized,or killed without a fair court trial. It was enacted on 1215, by King John after being petitioned by his nationals.This infamous document would eventually become a forerunner for the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Week 23 Review

1.What are some common misconceptions about the Crusades, and why are they incorrect?

There are four different misinterpretations of the Crusades, often mistakenly believed by the average person. Many people have preconceived notions about these epic religious wars, that are usually completely unfounded. The first myth is that the Christians attacked the innocent Muslims, with no basis for their revenge. This is simply factually untrue, as the Muslims had been besieging the Christian world for centuries. They had taken more than 2/3 of the Christian world under their oppressive wing, including Asia Minor, the Middle East, and North Africa. So the Christians had every right to be furious at the terrors they'd been plagued with for so long. Their anger wasn't in the slightest unwarranted, toward their fierce adversaries. Another lie about the Crusades was that their primary incentive for their journeys was to gain wealth and money. In actuality, joining the Crusades cost an enormous amount of cash, and many of those who volunteered ended  up deep in debt. Also, the majority of Crusaders were already substantially rich and had no need to acquire more. A third fallacy is that the Crusades caused the Muslims to be bitter, which led to the modern day 9/11 tragedy. 
However, the realization is that the Crusades were an insignificant period of Muslim history, so much so that few even knew what they were! Clearly it's evident that 21st-century terrorism was not the result of building prejudice, that budded with ancient strife. One final delusion was the assumption that the Christians were determined to convert their Muslim enemies, by sheer pressure. The facts contradict this, because there was considerably more Muslims than Catholics in Jerusalem. 



3.Based solely on the documents you read, describe the events of the Fourth Crusade.
The fourth crusade was a total disaster and definitely the most note-worthy, as far as the extent of it's damages. It took place from 1201- 1204 and was led by Pope Innocent III. The original purpose of the crusade was to vanquish the city of Jerusalem, which was controlled by the Muslims. Yet the crusaders became seriously distracted, causing the plan to go awry. They ended up sacking the capital of the Byzantine Empire,Constantinople. Their hindrance was a man named Alexis, who claimed he was the rightful heir to the throne of Constantinople. According to him, the current man in authority had wormed his way into his position illegitimately.He promised to help pay the campaigner's debts, if they would help put him back in power. Unfortunately, in spite of Pope Innocent's protests, the majority pitied Alexis and wanted to help him. They disregarded the wise cautions of the Pope and presented Alexis to the people of the city. Mistakenly, they assumed the inhabitants would be hospitable to the young prince. This was far from the case, as the mob shouted Alexis down.They refused to acknowledge the young prince as the true emperor. 

Now the crusaders were in a bad rut, because they desperately needed the money Alexis had to offer. They foolishly decided to attack the city, which housed over half a million! The easterners within eventually grew tired of fighting off Alexis's passionate defenders, and gave in. Fearful for his life, Alexis ran away with what belongings he had. Finally, he was reluctantly crowned king in August 1203. As he'd vowed, he began to pay the crusaders bills, starting with installment portions.Yet the manner in which he obtained the rest of the cash was absolutely appalling. He hacked the holy burial places of the emperors, stealing jewelry out of them! Then in turn, he sold these valuable ornaments for a high price. He also committed the atrocity of snatching gold from the church and having it liquefied. Even after these god-awful crimes, Alexis was still unable to fully repay what he owed.
 The masses were infuriated with him and on the verge of an uproar. In his agony, Alexis urged the crusaders to depart. Despondently, he supplicated them to allot him more time. One night, his lieutenant, Mouzoupious informs him there is a mob outside his palace. He manipulates Alexis into following him, pretending he is going to procure his escape. Instead he cleverly sweeps him into a jail cell.

Then the scheming Mouzoupious appoints himself as the emperor, and orders Alexis put to death.The leaders of the 4th crusade are under no obligation to this man, and find themselves in a even bigger mess, Their bishops and abbots come to a verdict: Mouzoupious is an murderer and inadequate for the job. They conclude to wage war on him, which results in the epic Sack of Constantinople. This was an abominable event, involving the marauding of the city and the massacre of many of its citizens. 
The fourth crusade left a bitter stain in it's wake, even further bridging the gap between the East and West. Their relationship only grew worse, because of everything that went on. It would take many long, painful years, before any reconciliation could happen.  

English Lesson 110 Essay

"Which of the three authors would you prefer to read on your own time? Why?


I would probably read more of O. Henry's(William Sydney Porter)'s works. They are fairly intriguing and unpredictable, as you never know how they will end. He is very skilled in his plot twists and turns, condensing a good amount of material into a short story. He never failed to deliver new and intricate storylines each week to a newsletter, which were eagerly devoured by his fan-base. People from all over the country enjoyed his  tales, such as the Gift of the Magi. This was a ironic story, from my point of view,because of how it turned out. A young newly-wed couple, Jim and Della both had good intentions of buying each other nice gifts. They wanted to express their respect and love for each other, by the bestowal of such tokens. But they had little spare money with which to purchase something. They were barely scraping by to pay for their basic essentials of food and rent. Yet the wife diligently saved what cash she could, which ended up only adding up to a dollar and eighty-seven cents. Naturally she despaired of carrying out her plan, especially as Christmas was fast approaching. 

So she decided to devise a plan, one that involved a great deal of self-sacrifice on her part. She would sell her long hair to a hairdresser, in order to obtain what she needed. Her hair was her most prized possession, the only thing she owned of real value. But she was willing to give it up, if it meant that her Jim could have a fob chain for his watch. She went ahead and had it cut, hoping her husband would be pleased. Upon his late arrival from work, her fears surface that he will no longer think her pretty. Without her glowing tresses, she feels useless to him. She admits to selling her hair for the good cause.Jim then surprises her with a fine comb she had been mooning over for a while. Her fob chain gift is rendered useless, when she finds out he sold his watch! Jim's watch had been his most precious belonging, an old, treasured one of his father's. In the end, the husband and wife are touched by each other's thoughtfulness and can only laugh off the misunderstanding. They resolve to enjoy their Christmas Eve together, with a delicious meal of pork chops prepared by Della. This was a tender, touching chronicle, although it was only a mere forty pages.

This is a classic example of O. Henry's knack for bombshell finales. Each one of his concoctions thoroughly displays an impressive cleverness and creativity. He was able to make a steady income from his constant productions, as well as entertaining numerous people. I find it astounding how easily he came up with such fine stories, that were so acutely composed with excellent themes. He was able to combine a versatile sense of humor and good morales for an electrifying outcome. There wasn't a single story of his that didn't have some effective point to it, or teach a practical lesson. 

Another aspect that makes O. Henry appealing is how relatable his characters are. They are simple, ordinary human beings, with emotions and faults like anyone. Therefore his writings could be attractive to the common man and not just the middle class. For the most part, they all had optimistic and positive outlooks on the world. 

Week 22 Review Essay

1) What was the Great Schism? What factors brought it on?
The Great Schism was a separation that occurred in 1054, between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western Catholic churches. There was a terrible rift with the two denominations over who should hold religious authority. The main source of division was the Orthodox people's dire need for increased reverence and position. They were adamant that their city, Constantinople, should take first place in the seat of church dominance. Especially they wanted to be the prevailing power over Rome, as second best or even as their equal. In the past, Rome had been realized because it was the Capital of Italy, and also where Saint Peter founded the church. But the eastern people were still persistent that their city was just as important. They wanted Constantinople to be the new Rome. Their persuasive thesis was that Constantinople had also been founded by a Saint, Saint Andrew. This was only one of a number of factors that contributed to the dissension within them. There was also issues because of differences in language. The Catholics used Latin in their documents and the Orthodox used Greek. Also the geographical placement of the churches caused problems, with the Western church in Rome and Eastern church in Constantinople.
Other distinctions were in the practices of each church. For instance, the Orthodox allowed clerical marriage and used leavened bread, during the Eucharist. (Note:The Eucharist is a ceremony in memory of the Last Supper). The Catholics advocated for clerical celibacy and would only use unleavened bread. In the East, they were very submissive to the Byzantine emperor. The Western Catholics were not required to be under the political control of the emperor.

 The last straw, so to speak, that sparked a permanent end, was the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Michael I Cerularius was promptly dismissed, forbidden from performing sacraments by Pope Leo IX in 1059 B.C. This act signified a final divide between the two churches, that lasted for over three decades.
 

3) What are the sacraments?

The sacraments are signs of invisible grace, that can be perceived by one of the five senses. There are 7 in total, that are administered within the church, by the bishops. They include baptism,confirmation, the Eucharist, healing(which comprises Penance & Healing of the Sick), and the Sacraments of Service:Holy Order and Matrimony. According to traditional Catholic belief, these sacraments were put in place by Christ himself and are given by his servants the priests. The spirit of grace can be seen in baptism, with the physical appearance of water on a person's head. In penance, your sins after baptism are forgiven by a priest. The evidence of this can be heard, when the priests pronounces you clean. These are two examples of how the sacraments are implemented in literal terms. They are regarded as holy and sacred by the Catholic church and very symbolic and serious. 


4)What is an indulgence?
An indulgence lifts the burden of temporal punishment for sins from a person. Temporal punishment is the earthly consequences a sinner would normally have for wrongdoing. Indulges would lesson the severity of the penalty that was imposed. There is, however, some common misconceptions about indulgences that should be clarified. Many people think indulgences are the purchase of forgiveness of sins. This is not the case at all, contrary to popular belief. You can't buy your way into restitution. In order for the indulgence to be valid, you have to already have your sins forgiven in confession.After repenting of them, you are granted absolution by a priest.
Indulgences can also be used for the deceased by eliminating a person's time in purgatory.