Industrialization and Nationalism Document Based Question

DIRECTIONS: The following question is based on the listed documents, available on the corresponding links. Some of the documents have been edited or excerpted. You will be graded based upon the Advanced Placement World History standards for document based questions (DBQs). DBQs are designed to test the habit of the mind listed in the Advanced Placement World History course description:

Using documents and other primary data: developing the skills necessary to analyze point of view and context and to understand and interpret information.

PART A: Answer the questions that pertain to each document. The questions are designed to help build your understanding of the documents and develop your ability to analyze documents. The Advanced Placement examination will not contain these questions.

PART B: The Advanced Placement examination will require you to write an essay based on a series of documents. You will see the following instructions on the examination:

Write an essay that:

• Has a relevant thesis and supports that thesis with evidence from the documents.

• Uses all or all but one of the documents.

• Analyzes the documents by grouping them in as many appropriate ways as possible.

• Does not simply summarize the documents individually.

• Takes into account both the sources of the documents and the authors’ points of view.

QUESTION: Using the documents and illustrations, analyze the rise of nationalism in Europe and Latin America during the nineteenth century. What factors contributed to the growing sense of nationalism? What forms did this nationalism take? What kinds of additional materials would you need to analyze the rise of nationalism in Europe and Latin America during the nineteenth century?

BACKGROUND: After the fall of Napoleon in 1812, the Congress of Vienna (1815) attempted to reestablish the old order. A new spirit of nationalism, however, swept Europe and the European Latin American colonies with mixed results. Though largely unsuccessful, a series of European revolutions in 1848 inaugurated a spirit of liberal nationalism that swept Europe. Latin American colonists declared their freedom from Europe. By the end of the century, Italy and Germany were unified. Nationalism became an important political force in Europe and gradually spread to other regions throughout the world.

Part A Questions

A. Map 18.2: Europe After the Congress of Vienna

• How did Europe’s major powers manipulate territory to decrease the probability that France could again threaten the Continent’s stability?

• What were the other goals of the Congress of Vienna?

• How successful was the Congress of Vienna?

B. Document: Revolutionary Excitement: Carl Shurz and the Revolution of 1848 in Germany

• What event sparked this author’s account?

• What is the author’s goal?

• What steps to this goal does he identify?

• What does the author believe will obstruct this goal?

• In what ways was this cause eventually co-opted by the Prussian King?

C. Map 18.3: Latin America in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

• In what ways did the French Revolution contribute to nineteenth century Latin American revolutions?

• What were some of the difficulties in building new nations in Latin America?

D. Document: A Radical Critique of the Land Problem in Mexico

• What serious problems were engendered by ownership of large estates in Latin American politics?

• How did such holdings determine the structure of Latin American societies?

• Based on this selection, how revolutionary were these Latin American revolutions?

E. Document: Garibaldi and Romantic Nationalism

• How do people react to Garibaldi in this account?

• What destruction has occurred in these neighborhoods? Which forces are the cause of this destruction?

• How does the journalist characterize Garibaldi and his struggle?

• What do we know about the author? Does he seem sympathetic to Garibaldi and his cause?

• In what ways was this cause eventually co-opted by the Piedmontese King?

F. Map: The Unification of Italy

• What obstacles did Italy face in its unification?

• Of the countries displayed on this map, which would likely, taking geographical and population-size factors into account, pose the greatest military threat to the new Italian state?

G. Map: The Unification of Germany

• What role did the formation of the North German Confederation play in German unification?

• What role did the absorption of the South German Confederation play in German unification?

H. Document: Emancipation: Serfs and Slaves

• What were some of the ideological and economic reasons that Tsar Alexander II freed the serfs?

• How do these motivations compare to Lincoln’s?

• What changes did this emancipation initiate in Russia?

I. Illustrations: Caspar David Friedrich, Man and Woman Gazing at the Moon and Eugene Delacroix, Women of Algiers

• What genre of painting do these works represent?

• What themes are present in these works?

• How do these works reflect nationalism?

Scoring Guide for the Document Based Question Essay

BASIC CORE

Points 0-7

1) Has acceptable thesis. 1 point

2) Uses all of the documents. 1 point

3) Supports thesis with appropriate evidence from documents. 1 point

4) Understands the basic meaning of documents cited in the 1 point

essay. (May misinterpret one document.)

5) Analyzes point of view in at least two or three documents 1 point

6) Analyzes documents by grouping them in two or three ways 1 point

7) Identifies and explains the need for another document/source 1 point

EXPANDED CORE

Points 0-2

Expands beyond basic core of 7 points. A student must earn 7 points in the basic core area before earning points in the expanded core area.

Examples:

* Has a clear, analytical, and comprehensive thesis.

* Uses all or almost all documents.

* Uses documents persuasively as evidence.

* Shows careful and insightful analysis of the documents.

* Analyzes bias or point of view in at least four documents cited in the essay.

* Analyzes documents in additional ways — additional groupings or other.

* Brings in relevant "outside" historical content.

Somalia is burning and we care about Mexican Abortions

You cannot find any news about the Ethiopian siege of Mogadishu, the capital city of Somalia, on any of the main-stream U.S. media outlets. The New York times is leading it's international section with a story on the legalization of abortion in Mexico. CNN is leading with the story of a letter being sent to Iran from London with stories on South Park and Sanjaya Malakar from American Idol.

I am, once again, disgusted by the choices our media outlets deem as worthy of publishing. Noam Chomsky, in his book Manufacturing Consent, illustrates how the American media only publishes stories that are in the countries best interest. This can be clearly seen with the current events in Somalia.

For those readers that are not aware, there have been many skirmishes between Somalia and Ethiopia in the past 20 years. However, fro most of that 20 years, the United States made a firm stand to support the Somalians because Ethiopia was backed by the U.S.S.R. Fast-forward to today and we see an Islamic political party in Somalia that has been denied its right to rule and looks to take the power that is rightfully theirs with force. The Ethiopians, backed by the non-Muslim word, are using this Somalian affair to justify invading.

Where is the outrage? Where are the protesters? We have just allowed a country to invade another sovereign nation. In the West we do not care about this story; this is true orientalism at work. The Africans (Muslim Africans) have become the "other" that orientalism speaks of; they seem strange and we fear the terrorists that may be harbored in the countryside so we let this happen. No reports, no video, no embedded reporters.

I ask myself this question when I see events, such as this, unfolding with no coverage in the United States: Would the world care if this was happening in the US? With out a doubt, yes! Then why don't we care?

Below is video taken from Mogadishu. It is clear that there is fighting going on in and around the city.

Study Scramble

It is about that time where APWH students are looking for anything to help them study for the exam. I had my students (last year) create reviews using Google maps. One of my students saved his and, whereas it's not complete (or the best) it is a really good example of how to visualize and connect the information.

This is for Unit 4 and contains some of the bigger events of the time period. Enjoy!!

How to PowerPoint

I enjoy using PowerPoint and many assignments I create involve my students using such a tool to teach the other studnets about whatever topic it may be. Far too often the slides are very boring and jam packed with information to the point where they are impossible to read.

The slide show below is a great example of how to revamp your slideshows. My favorite point that the author makes is that is costs ZERO to make a new slide...so use it early and often.

| View | Upload your own

YOU..Is New York Times wants

Since you are Time's Person of The Year for 2006 the NYT has come to you for help.

Help Us Report on the Cyclone in Myanmar

By Robert Mackey

With reports that nearly 4,000 people may have died in Myanmar as a result of the cyclone that struck the country over the weekend, NYTimes.com is asking readers inside Myanmar to help us report on the disaster by sending in photographs, video or written accounts of the storm and its aftermath.

To submit a photograph, please send it by e-mail to the following address: world.nyt@gmail.com — and let us know when and where the photograph was taken and what it depicts. Please also include your name, but if you would prefer not to be identified, let us know that as well.

Yadavas of India Is Jews

Even though Jewish scriptures talk about Egypt, no Egyptian text ever found contains a single reference to Jews in Egypt. States William G. Dever, who has spent thirty years on Biblical archaeology in the near east: “It must be borne in my mind that no Egyptian text ever found contains a single reference to Hebrews or Israelites in Egypt, much less to an Exodus.” ( Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, Wm.B.Erdmans Publishing Company, Cambridge, 2006; pg 12-13). The only reason why their scriptures talk about Egypt is because their scriptures were modified at a later point of time. This was done under instructions from Moses for particular reasons.

You must have already heard about the claim that Jews are Yadavas of India, the tribe in which Krishna, the Godly figure of Indians, was born. The very name Hebrew is derived from Abhirah, a tribe associated with Krishna in Indian epic Mahabharat. The word Yadavas was derived from the term “Yah Devas,” meaning Devas of Yah. Those days, people living in India were called Devas. And when these external people migrated into India from an external region called Yah, the local people called them the Devas of Yah or Yah Devas, which went on to become Yadavas. Can you spot the connection between the term “Yah Devas” and the name Yahweh, the single most important name of the God of Jews, and of all Abrahamic religions? A large number of Jewish names and concepts can be traced back to Krishna and Yadavas of India, and the Indian religion, through some simple linguistic analysis. I have given some important comparisons in the following chart, taken from the book. You can make a judgement for yourself. Please click on the chart below to expand it.

If you have a little bit of knowledge of linguistics, the words would look much closer than you think. For example, I have given the comparison between Hamakom and Gomakom. We need to note that consonants G and H are guttural sounds, both of them are emitted from throat. For example, the Vaishnavite Goddess Mahalaxmi is often pronounced as Magalaxmi in South India - Consonant H is replaced by Consonant G. Does this mean that both are different Goddesses? Hamakom and Gomakom are almost identical words and are much closer to each other than it readily appears - after thousands of years of separation, a little change in the words is expected. Similarly, Keturah and Gayatri, Keshav and Hashem - these are all very very close to each other phonetically, and are almost identical words. The book actually develops a simple linguistic framework to help the reader do such comparisons by himself/herself. The above provided data is only a portion of the connection that exists between the Jews and the Yadavas of India; the book covers it in a much more detailed manner.

When did these Semitic people migrate into India? How long did they stay there? When and how and why did they migrate out of India? A huge missing chunk of world history!

Source: Excerpts from the book "19000 Years of World History: The Story of Religion" by Prithviraj R - a reconstruction of 19,000 year world history, based on the historical content of the scriptures and legends of ancient religions. The book attempts to provide answers to most the important unresolved theological questions related to Judaism and Christianity.

Prithvi’s blog: http://19000years.blogspot.com

Four Thousand Years ago Buddhisme was born

One of the most important calculations of Indian history has been done on the basis of the lifetime of a certain Indian emperor called Ashoka, considered to be one of the greatest emperors of world history. He was a Buddhist emperor who was responsible for the spread of Buddhism, to distant corners of India and the neighboring countries, by sending large number of Buddhist missionaries to these places. He built thousands of Buddhist stupas and established thousands of Buddhist monasteries all over his empire that stretched from Iran to Bandladesh and from Central Asia (Afghanistan) to South India. A large number of rocks and pillars, present all over his empire, have been inscribed with his edicts and promulgations to his subjects, written in Magadhi, Sanskrit, Greek, and Aramic languages. He was initially a cruel king who killed a large number of his brothers in order to ascend the throne. He inherited a large empire and tried to expand it by waging a war against the neighboring kingdom of Kalinga. He won the war, but the gruesome sight of thousands of mutilated dead bodies at the war completely changed his heart. He felt repentant about it, stopped his empire expanding spree, and converted to Buddhism after being attracted to the Buddhist principles of non-violence and renunciation.

We have two sources to thank for much of this information on Ashoka – his rock edicts and Buddhist scriptures (one Indian and two Sri Lankan). The scriptures talk about Ashoka of Mauryan dynasty. Mainstream historians are not much aware of Ashoka of the Gupta dynasty. As per them, there is only one Ashoka – Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty, as given by the Buddhist scriptures. And these Ashoka’s rock edicts mention five neighboring Greek and Egyptian kings – Antiochos, Ptolemy (second), Antigonos, Magas, Alexander (second). Since these kings are dated to 250-300 BC, this has been the date arrived for Ashoka (Mauryan). As per the Buddhist scriptures, Ashoka (Mauryan) was crowned two hundred and eighteen years after the demise of the Buddha. This would mean that Buddha’s date is roughly 500 BC. And this date tallies perfectly with the date of 500 BC they arrived through the Aryan Invasion methodology. The calculations seem completely perfect and pretty straight forward, and mainstream historians have accepted these calculations completely for the last two hundred years.

The most troubling aspect with these date calculations is that there are two Chandragupts and two Ashokas in Indian history. And as per the writings of Greek traveler Megasthenes, the Gupta dynasty was ruling India at about 300 BC. And these writings of Megashtenes tally with the Puranic calculations as well. And Indian history does not talk about two Chandragupts or two Ashokas ruling India at the same time. While traditional Indian and Greek sources talk about Ashoka of Gupta dynasty ruling India at about 300 BC, mainstream historians have arrived at the conclusion that Ashoka of Mauryan dynasty was ruling India at around 300 BC. So we either have to discard the writings of Megashtenes as well as Puranic sources completely, or we have to see if mainstream historians have got the date of Ashoka wrong.

Several mainstream historians are not aware of this controversy. Even if they are aware, they dismiss Megasthenes as an unreliable writer and dismiss the Indian scriptures as pure mythology. They even easily shrug away the fact that other Greek accounts at the time of Megasthenes do not talk much about the presence of Buddhism in India. And almost all the mainstream historians are blissfully unaware of the presence of two Ashokas in Indian history. A handful of Indian historians are aware of this puzzle; they have suggested that the Ashoka of the Buddhist sources belongs to Gupta dynasty and he ruled India around 300 BC. However, the Buddhist scriptures clearly talk about the emperor Ashoka to be belonging to the Mauryan dynasty, completely negativating the arguments of the few handful Indian historians who try to wriggle out of the conundrum. This has been the biggest puzzle that has been haunting Indian historical calculations for more than a century, almost like a Sherlock Holmes and Hercules Poirot mystery.

Does this mean that the mainstream historians are completely happy and are not at all puzzled by their calculations? The answer is, surprisingly, no; they are still quite puzzled over the most important things.

The rock edicts of Ashoka mention that Ashoka converted to Buddhism because of the remorse he felt on account of Kalinga war. However, both the Indian as well as the Sri Lankan Buddhist scriptures differ with this; these scriptures do not talk anything about Kalinga war! They talk about Ashoka being converted by the serene teachings of a certain novice Buddhist monk Samudra/Nyagrodha. Why are Buddhist scriptures silent about Kalinga war? While scriptures talk about 84,000 monasteries established by Ashoka, the edicts are silent on this; they do not mention any Buddhism related activities by Ashoka. The Buddhist scriptures talk about Ashokan missionary activities to Kashmir, Maharahtra, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Mysore, Himalayas, Western India, and Greek country. However, the edicts talk about medical help to his neighboring kingdoms; they talk about the names of the kings and dynasties around his empire including Choda, Pandya, Satiyaputra, Kerala, Sri Lanka, and five Greek kingdoms. The scriptures do not talk about officials called Dharma Mahamatras in his kingdom, as professed by the edicts. There are several other discrepancies as well in the basic details of his life.

The Ashoka of Buddhist scriptures is an exceptionally devout individual who used to fall prostrate at the feet of even the lay Buddhist monks. He was desparate to be known as the greatest of all donors to the faith of the Buddha. Indian scripture mentions that, at the end of his life, he donated almost everything he had to Buddhist monasteries. He was someone who wanted to ensure that Buddhism spread all across the globe. In Bengal, one follower of Mahavira drew a picture showing Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira. Ashoka came to know about this and ordered that all Mahavira followers at that place be executed – 1800 of them were slain in a single day! He decreed in a similar manner on another occasion, promising gold to those who brought slain heads of non-Buddhists! And Ashoka went out of his way to convert people into Buddhism as some legends show. He wanted to convert his brother Veetashoka to Buddhism; for doing this, he enacted a drama. One day, he contrived with his ministers to get Veetashoka sit on the emperor’s throne for a few minutes. He then, as if he was not aware of the happenings, caught his brother in the act. He then declared that his brother sitting on his throne is an act of treachery and decreed that his brother be executed. Ashoka, however, gave one week time for the execution and let his brother enjoy all the royal comforts for a week, as if he (Veetashoka) were the emperor. At the end of the week, Ashoka called his brother and asked him if he enjoyed the one week of heavenly comforts of an emperor. Veetashoka told him that the death that was hanging on his head did not allow him to enjoy the heavenly comforts at all. Ashoka then told him, “if you are oblivious to pleasures just because of one impending death, how do you expect enlightened monks to be happy about comforts of this life when they have to fear the deaths of hundreds of lives in future births?” Veetashoka was taken by this and converted himself into a Buddhist monk.

However, the Ashoka of the rock edicts gives us a completely different picture. In one of the edicts, he does profess his faith in the Buddha; but that is about it. There is no evidence that he carried out any missionary activities. None of his rock edicts mention anything about the teachings of the Buddha. In fact, the Ashoka of rock edicts talks about equality of all religions! One of the edicts, mentions the following :

“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka), does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this - that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka), desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

Those who are content with their own religion should be told this: Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka), does not value gifts and honors as much as he values that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. And to this end many are working - Dhamma Mahamatras, Mahamatras in charge of the women's quarters, officers in charge of outlying areas, and other such officers. And the fruit of this is that one's own religion grows and the Dhamma is illuminated also.”

Unable to explain these dichotomies, some mainstream historians have dismissed the Buddhist scriptures as unreliable; they go purely by the rock edicts to get a picture of Ashokan personality, while they rely on the Buddhist scriptures for historical aspects. We can see as to how selective they have been about the whole Ashokan episode – they have dismissed Megasthenes as a liar, they have dismissed the Indian scriptures as pure mythology, they have shrugged off other Greek writings, and they finally have dismissed even the Buddhist scriptures! I think that they have a whole lot of answering to do about the Ashokan episode, even if they seem to currently think that their calculations are perfect.

I think the whole confusion has arisen because there are two emperor Ashokas, and both are Buddhists! The Ashoka of Buddhist scriptures belongs to the Mauryan dynasty of 1500 BC. He was a compulsive individual, devout in his faith, and took steps to spread his religion far and wide by sending missionaries and constructing Buddhist monasteries and stupas. However, he had nothing to do with the edicts and the Kalinga war. The Buddhist scriptures are talking about Ashoka the Mauryan. The scriptures mostly talk about parts within India - Kashmir, Maharahtra, Mysore, Himalayas, Western India. Buddhism was not yet spread in India by his time – so the scriptures are clearly talking of the spread of Buddhism within India under Mauryan emperor Ashoka.

The Ashoka of the edicts belongs to the Gupta dynasty of 300 BC. He was the one who was involved in Kalinga war. He felt remorseful and later converted to Buddhism. However, by his time, Buddhism was already spread far and wide and there was no need for him to send missionaries. Moreover, by his time, Buddhism was reeling under the onslaught of Sankara and the Vedic religion was making a comeback. Buddhism was in a confused state about its ideology because of the theological attack launched by Sankara. Buddhism was in a transition stage and it did not give much scope for missionary activites. So, Ashoka the Gupta was not hawkish about his religion, but was much more tolerant of all religions. And the places mentioned in his edicts are mostly his neighboring kingdoms – the edicts are not talking about places within India. The places mentioned in the edicts are Choda, Pandya, Satiyaputra, Kerala, and Sri Lanka on the south of his empire in South India, and five Greek kingdoms to the northwest of his empire. The places mentioned are clearly not talking about spread of Buddhism within India.

The two Ashokas are completely different. The confusion has arisen because both are Buddhists; so both the stupas and the edicts are being attributed to one and the same person. If we consider that the edicts belong to one emperor while the stupas and monasteries belong to another, the riddle is solved. The two Ashokas have been merged into one by historians.

So if we arrive at the date of 1500 BC for the Buddhist Mauryan emperor Ashoka, as per the Buddhist scriptures, we can easily arrive at the date of the Buddha. Buddha precedes Ashoka by two hundred and eighteen years. So this would put Buddha at anywhere between 1700 BC and 1800 BC. This roughly tallies with the Puranic calculations as well, which put Buddha’s date to around 1800–1900 BC.

Source: Excerpts from Prithviraj R's book on history - "19000 Years of

World History: The Story of Religion" - a revolutionary and meticulous

reconstruction of 19,000 years of world history, based on the

historical aspects of the major religions of the world. The book

contains a more detailed study of the several stages in the revised

Buddhist history.

The Most Important Question of Indian History Is How Incarnations of Vishnu

The most important question of Indian history has never been asked! So it has never been answered as well!

Indian religion is made up of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahma is the creator of this universe, Vishnu is the preserver and maintainer, and Siva is the destroyer. Since Brahma’s job was done as soon as he created this universe, he no longer has any importance in the scheme of things - he is, therefore, not worshipped; worship is offered only to either Vishnu or Siva. So, Hinduism is made up of primarily two sects – Vaishnavites who worship Vishnu, and Saivites who worship Siva. Vishnu, in his role as preserver, keeps descending to earth every now and then to restore and preserve righteousness. Four supposedly historical figures got associated with him as his incarnations – Parasuram, Ram, Krishna, and Buddha. Vishnu is primarily worshipped in the form of Ram or Krishna. After linguistic and cultural studies were done on Indian history about two and half centuries ago, western historians have pointed out that India is primarily made of two ethnic groups – Indo-Europeans, termed as Aryans, who belong to the Vedic religion and Vaishnavite school of thought; and Dravidians, who belonged to the Saivite school of thought. After some further study, they propounded that Dravidians and Saivism are native to India, while Indo-Europeans, Vedic religion, and Vaishnavism came from outside India, when these Aryans invaded or migrated into India around 1500 BC. Even though there is much controversy over this theory, this has become the mainstream argument of the Indo-European history; and it has generally been agreed by one and all that Saivism, supposedly the religion of the native Dravidians, is much older than Vaishnavism, and is dated to at least five thousand years ago, if not more.

Now to the most important question of Indian - a question that can have impact on the historical studies of nearly three billion Indo-Europeans, spread across the world. Why have Parasuram, Ram, Krishna, and Buddha been associated with Indo-European God Vishnu as his incarnations? Why have they not been associated with Dravidian God Siva? The question is extremely important; yet it has never been asked!

As per the tradition of India, Vishnu is the preserver; so only he descends to earth and incarnates in order to restore righteousness in this world. Since Siva is the destroyer of the religion, he never incarnates. This answer, steeped in religious beliefs, has been accepted by one and all, including the rational and erudite historians who are not supposed to be easily carried away by religious beliefs.

Is this explanation for Vishnu’s incarnations admissible? Even though Siva does not have popularly known incarnations, a deeper look into the scriptures tells us that Saivite religion, or Saivism, is not averse to incarnations. Saivite scholar Sankara has been declared to be an incarnation of Siva, even though worship is not offered to him. Linga Purana, a Saivite scripture, talks about 28 incarnations of Siva, four more than any Vishnu incarnations ever listed in any scripture! As per scriptures, Siva has more number of incarnations than Vishnu! So, how can we say that Siva does not incarnate because he is the destroyer? We cannot. So, given that Saivism is not averse to incarnations, why did these godly figures of Ram, Krishna, and Buddha get associated with Vishnu and not with Siva? All the more astonishing is that fact that Ram, Krishna, and Vishnu are always described to be of pitch dark color, an attribute more of Dravidians than Aryans. So why have these godly figures not been declared as Siva’s incarnations?

Take the case of Sai Baba in India. After Krishna and Buddha, probably no other Godly figure has ever had such an in influence on the religious ethos of India. Sai Baba, a nineteenth century Saint from the Maharashtra region of India, is being revered as God’s incarnation by many – he has thousands and thousands of temples all over India today, with his worship even overtaking the worship other Hindu Gods at some places. Is he associated with Vishnu? No. Is he associated with Siva? No. He is associated neither with Vishnu nor with Siva; yet he is considered to be a Hindu God. So why has he not automatically been associated with Vishnu like the other historical figures before him? Why has he not been molded into the Vaishnavite concept of incarnations?

The reason is because, when there are two strongly competing sects, it is not possible to associate a godly figure with any one sect as each sect will claim the godly figure to be the incarnation of their own God. When north Indian saint Kabir died, both Hindus and Muslims fought for his dead body, with each sect claiming Kabir to be affiliated with their own faith. Similarly, if Saivism and Vashnavism were both extant during the time of Ram, Krishna, or Buddha, both the sects would have claimed them to be the incarnations of their own God. There would probably have been a bitter fight as well between the two sects, with each sect trying to appropriate the legacy of the godly figure. So why did these figures get associated with Vishnu alone?

One explanation for this question can be the supposedly strong affiliation of the godly figure. Despite the presence of two sects, a figure can get associated with one of these sects if he has shown overwhelming inclination towards one particular sect. In some parts of India, some historical figures got associated as incarnations of Vishnu, even though popular and traditional scriptures do not support this thought. Chaitanya, the sixteenth century saint of Bengal, has been accepted as an incarnation of Krishna/Vishnu because he was a staunch devotee of Krishna. He showed a clear and complete Vaishnavite inclination – so he was associated with Vaishnavism. Similarly, eighteenth century Saint Swaminarayan has been accepted as an incarnation of Vishnu in Gujarat because he preached towards devotion towards Vishnu throughout his life. So, taking such an explanation into account, did Parasuram, Ram, Krishna, or Buddha show such a clear inclination towards Vishnu in being staunch devotees of Vishnu?

If we go into the answers for this question, we are in for some surprises. Parasuram is portrayed in scriptures as a staunch devotee of Siva! Ram never talked of himself to be God. He was never associated with any miracles. His claim to fame is because he delivered people from a certain oppression and then taught people about morality and righteousness though his example. And he is claimed to be a strong devotee of Siva with a large number of temples all over India claiming to have Siva Lingas that were worshipped by Ram during his lifetime. As per some legends of the Indian epic Mahabharat, Krishna is supposed to have acquired his lethal weapons by worshipping and propitiating Siva. He is supposed to have got his wives and sons by worshipping Siva’s consort (wife) Parvati. Added to this, in Indian holy scripture Gita, Krishna does not talk of himself as an incarnation of Vishnu. He just talks of himself as the Supreme God who is not associated with any sect of Vaishnavism or Saivism. So, going by all of this, I would have expected these godly figures to be associated with Siva. There was an overwhelming possibility for these figures to have got declared as incarnations of Siva! It makes absolutely no sense to me to have them declared as incarnations of Vishnu. In case of Buddha, Buddha was not even a follower of Vedic religion; he propounded his own religion of Buddhism; yet he got associated as an incarnation of Vishnu! Given the personality affinity between Siva and Buddha, with both of them always shown in meditative postures, one would have expected Buddha to have been declared as an incarnation of Siva; yet, he is declared as an incarnation of Vishnu! It makes no sense that he is declared as an incarnation of Vishnu. Why have these godly figures got associated with Vishnu and not with Siva? The question is quite intriguing, as much as it is extremely important; yet, no historian ever asked himself of the question.

Did these godly figures get associated with Vishnu and not with Siva because Vishnu was the only God of the civilization at their time, with no competing sect of Saivism existing alongside Vaishnavism? Since Vishnu was the only God, each glorious presence on earth automatically got associated with him, not because he is the preserver? Was there a time when India was occupied only by Indo-Europeans with no or neglgible Dravidian population? This would then mean that the roots of Indo-European history would lie in India, and not around the Mediterranean as claimed by mainstream historians. This would completely reverse the historical calculations of three billion Indo-Europeans!

Oovoo!

 

Oovoo!

Oovoo.com is a relatively new video recording device. You have use it to have a video conference with up to six people which is a great way for your students to work on a lesson plan. Also, you can interview and record up to 1000 minutes which would be great if your students are making a video and want to put it into something like Movie Maker.

 

 

Google Earth New Virtual Sites

 

Google Earth New Virtual Sites

Go see Stonehenge, Versailles, old town in Spain, historic center in Prague and much more. Amazing. Here is the list of places you can visit.

A Seventh Grader's PLE

A Seventh Grader's PLE

A personal learning environment is a pretty new term, but it is essentially an aggregator for all the sites you might use to perform your necessary functions. For example, you might have your Facebook page there, websites you frequent, Google Docs and more all in one place. I use igoogle.com for mine. Above is another aggregator called Symbaloo.com which a 7th grader uses to demonstrate how she does her classwork. It is very much worth a minute to watch it.

Google Sites and Posting Your Assigments

 

Google Sites and Posting Your Assigments

I used to be happy that we had Blackboard, but no longer as it is clunky (six clicks to correct one assignment). Here is a great example of what you can do with Google Sites. It shows you that one can have folders, links, etc. Of course your students can turn in the their work through Google Docs (one click to grade) and you can include PowerPoints, pictures, quizzes, etc. Here is the best example of what is possible in the page. So if your system does not have an online delivery device for your students Google Sites.

Multiple Uses for Google Earth

Multiple Uses for Google Earth

I found this from a tweet from Ann Oro. I am using it for locations of battles (such as the Civil War) where my students can put the name of the leaders, statistics, etc.

An interview with Professor Ramsden

The secondary blog of the Conservative History Journal is finally in existence. The aim is to post very long pieces on that with shorter links on this, the primary blog. There may well be future technological developments on the site but warnings will be posted.

The first piece on the other blog is a long interview Mark Coalter, a frequent contributor to the Journal, had with Professor John Ramsden in the summer of 2007. The interview has not been published until now. It is now up in its entirety. But just to whet everybody's appetite, here is an excerpt about Professor Ramsden and Lord Willoughby de Broke:

MC: You could always look at Lord Willoughby de Broke

JR: I was responsible for getting Lord Willoughby de Broke’s papers deposited. I was the first person to read them and I went to see the then Lord Willoughby. I said to him, that these are valuable papers which should be deposited somewhere for safety. He asked where, and I took a deep breath and thought where would he like me to say? With one eye on 1911, I suggested the House of Lords’ Records Office as an appropriate place, which he thought a good idea. We then had a discussion about 1911. Bearing in mind that this would have been about 1970 when the conversation was taking place, he engaged me in a long discussion about whether the Parliament Act of 1911 had not, in fact, been a rather bad thing; it would have been much better (he argued) if the House of Lords had retained its power. The Willoughby de Brokes were die-hards unto the very end.

MC: And yet willing to countenance Asquith’s new Peers?

JR: There was a letter in that collection addressed to, I don’t think it was Carson, rather Craig, in Belfast around the time of the so-called Mutiny at the Curragh, in which Willoughby de Broke writes to the Ulster leaders saying that I am at your disposal, I can ride and shoot well and I have many tenants who will come with me. Just like 1642, whereas this was 1911 and he was proposing to raise Warwickshire for the Union! It’s wonderful. I guess Craig’s reply, while it doesn’t quite say calm down, old boy, that’s what it means. Obviously, what the Ulstermen needed was Lord Willoughby riding to the rescue. Instead, they pointed out they could look after themselves in Belfast, as indeed they could.

There is a great deal of absolutely fascinating stuff in the interview. I strongly urge everyone to read it.

PS Tory Historian will be back very soon.