What is so Wrong with Social Orders?

Being able to control your life and how you live is something most people desire. Whether someone is born rich, poor, or homeless, they can grow up and change their life. Citizens living in the United States today have the ability to change social classes. But this was not always the case. In the Middle Ages, power and equality were much different than they are today. Social orders, “the structures, institutions, and practices which maintain ‘normal’ ways of relating and behaving,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order) were taken to extremes in the Middle Ages. Because of the social orders and rules that the people of this time had, their freedom was taken away and they were stereotyped.

During the period of the Middle Ages, “feudalism was the law of the land.” The upper noble class controlled the lower class. This government consisted of kings, lords, peasants, and the leaders of the church. Life for peasants, or serfs, was extremely hard. Approximately 90% of the people living in the Middle Ages were peasants, which means that mostly everyone was treated harshly, and the majority of the population did not have many rights. Peasants who were not free lived on the land without paying any money because they worked for the lord to earn their stay. They could not get married without their lord’s permission. If they tried to escape, they could be caught and put in stocks. Imagine being in a stock for two hours, two days, or event two weeks. Boys were sold as slaves, and girls were sold as maid servants, or even worse, by their own families. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8za4eBPVQ) Most people do not want to live this way, and if the majority of your population is, that means that only a few select members are controlling everyone else. This is not a fair or just way to rule a society or government, and it is seen as a problem in the Middle Ages. (http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html)

Three classes, or orders, were prevalent in the Middle Ages: those who pray (the monks and priests), those who fight (the nobles and knights), and those who work. The people of this time lived in a life of inequality. You were born, lived, and died in this situation. “Whatever position in life you were born to, that was where you belonged.” This class system was of staggering extremes. A human life was measured in pounds, shillings, and pence, and if someone was murdered, the price of their death was determined by their social class. Your class was as much a part of you as was the color of your skin, and it was literally in your genes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8za4eBPVQ) This stereotypical and categorized way of living was not a fair way to govern the people of the Middle Ages.

In the United States today, equality is our ideal. Freedom and the right to live a happy life is what was granted to the citizens of the United States hundreds of years ago by our founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence, written on July 4, 1776, states, “We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp) This is a very different theory than that which was known in the Middle Ages. The Declaration of Independence also declares our rights and the freedom that citizens of the US have. It states in its First Amendment that citizens have the freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd) These are the rights that all people should have. The citizens of the United States had them, but people living in the Middle Ages did not.

The social orders of the Middle Ages robbed most of the population of their freedom and their own way of living. Today, it is seen that the US has been productive with allowing its people to have their own rights. The people in the Middle Ages could have lived much better lives than they did, but instead many lived lives in inequality where their freedom was taken and they were stereotyped.

Works Cited

"The Feudal Structure of the Medieval World." Web. 23 Apr. 2010. <http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html>.

First Amendment Center. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd>.

"Inside the Medieval Mind-POWER-Pt.1." Youtube. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8za4eBPVQ>.

"Social Order." Wikipedia. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order>.

Yale Law School. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp>.

Picture Source:

Wikimedia Commons. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg>.

1066 Magazine

Submission For Class Blog

The Vikings took the world as being flat like most people did back in the time of the Vikings. They had 9 different worlds in their flat planet controlled by different groups: Midgard, Alfheimr, Svartalfheim, Vanaheimr, Muspellheim, Jotunheimr, Niflheim, Asgard, Hel, and Ginnungagap. Each one had a different inhabitant and each one was created as the vikings tell it. They explain the Earth's creation like this; "Then Bur's son lifted the level land, Mithgarth the mighty here they made, The sun from the South warmed stones from the earth, and green was the ground with growing leeks." (The Poetic Edda: Voluspo) In the passage from The Poetic Eda, The vikings explain Earth's creation as if Bur's son took earth, which had no life on it at the time; Then he had risen the land from the ground and made life appear through the sunlight from the south. The God's then had a meeting to name the new land. As the meeting continued, Giants, dwarfs, and Elves come to the meeting. The were all given their own world by the God's.


The Poetic Edda: Voluspo-  "The Poetic Edda: Voluspo." Ow.ly - Shorten Urls, Share Files and Track Visits - Owly. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
Picture of Odin- http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/gallery_images/0610/0000/0000/odin4_mid.jpg

How was the Medieval concept of power and equality different from our contemporary concept?

The medieval concept of power and quality was based on that of the church as ours is based on the power of the people and president. Then there was the concept of social classes in the middle ages that made it so that no matter how smart you are or how great you are, no matter what class you are born into, you will always be in that class. If you were a peasant you and your family to  come will always be the lowest on the food chain. In our country and time we base our power by and on the people as we live a democratic life. Our current president is Obama and he has pulled and torn apart this country. In the medieval times, what every the church said goes and will be the law. Half of the population was either a peasant or a monk so in all some of them had power. These are two completely different forms of society and power that happens approximately 1000 years apart from  each other. Thw world has progressed rapidly since the medieval times and will never stop rising and falling as the years pass by on this planet we call home.

Citations:

• http://www.aboutaberdeen.com/photos/Medieval_Church.jpg
• http://sociologycompass.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/barack_obama.jpg

What is the better Funeral Oration? Why?

What is the better Funeral Oration? Why?

1.      Explanation of events leading up to each Oration (with reference source)

a.       The Peloponnesian War, 431 to 404 B.C., was an ancient Greek war, fought by Athens and its empire against the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War)- dedicated to all of those who have died in attle.

b.      The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States as well as several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)- said to honor the nation and to show the presidents look on the war.

c.       Thesis- The wars were very similar in the fact that they consisted of two groups fighting for freedom and rights.

2.      Primary sources Pericles vs. Lincoln (use quotes) support topic: Appeal to patriotism

a.       "Most of my predecessors in this place have commended him who made this speech part of the law, telling us that it is well that it should be delivered at the burial of those who fall in battle” (Pericles)

                                                              i.      That many of his companions and friends died in this war and they honored their families through their death

                                                            ii.      Dedicated this speech to those who have died in battle and that they should never be forgotten.

b.      “Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.” (Lincoln) 

                                                              i.      That no nation would want a civil war thrown upon them like it was a gift.

                                                            ii.      They stand on one of the battlefields of that war in honor of those who have died.

3.      Appeal to Pride?

4.      Appeal to honor, glory, Nation, etc,

5.      Conclusion

 ·  "American Civil War -." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. .

·         "Ancient History Sourcebook: Thucydides (c.460/455-c.399 BCE): Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War (Book 2.34-46)." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. .

·          "The Gettysburg Address." Gettysburg.com. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. .

·         "Peloponnesian War -." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. .

Could Rome have risen to power without slavery?

Slavery has shown up all over the world in every nations past and most of the time it has been due to the race of the slaves that are doing the labor. Slavery in Ancient Rome was a major part to their success and how they became one of the world's greatest empires in their time. The Romans whipped, beat, and put their slaves through so much pain and labor that it was if they were dogs.  "Yesterday I gave each of you his special job, but you're so worthless, neglectful, stubborn, that I must remind you with a good basting." (Plautus, Pseudolus, Act. I, Sc. 2./http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/slavery-romrep1.html) Rome could have risen to power if they didn't have slaves but they would of had to work to be able to become the civilization that they once were. 

The race of the slaves was normally what had gotten them into slavery in the first place. The Americans enslaved Africans and the Egyptians enslaved Jews all because of their religion and the color of their skin. The Romans however treated slaves as a social class and they were owned be free men that sold and traded them to those who could afford them. After a slave was freed, most went on to become Gladiators. "One Slave/Gladiator named Spartacus led an entire army of slaves against the Roman senatorial in the Third Servile War." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_slavery#Slavery_in_Rome) The Romans needed slaves to do manual labor but they didn't need them to fight in their massive armies, which at the time were the greatest armies in the world. Slavery was a huge part in the Roman life but it was not a part of how the Romans lived their lives. "Well; be it so! And so are you blunted with stripes, but is that any reason why you shouldn't work for me"? (Plautus, Pseudolus, Act. I, Sc. 2./http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/slavery-romrep1.html) In this line from the play, the slave owner is telling the slave that even if the blade o the ax is dull, that is no reason why you can't work for me. Slavery in Rome was bad but it was not the worst.

The Romans treated their slaves with the same respect that hey would give to a dog or another animal. If the owner did not get what they wanted, they would have that slave killed off and they would buy another. "You say, Rufus, that your rabbit has not been cooked well,/and you call for a whip/ you prefer to cut up your cook,/ rather than your rabbit. (Book III, No. 94)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_slavery#Slavery_in_Rome) The Romans were brutal and were extremely harsh to the slaves that the owned and sold. The slaves could rarely get want they wanted and could rarely ever be freed by their master unless they were abandoned. There have been many cases of slave revolts that take place. "When Sicily, after the Carthaginian collapse, had enjoyed sixty years of good fortune in all respects, the Servile War broke out for the following reason. The Sicilians, having shot up in prosperity and acquired great wealth, began to purchase a vast number of slaves, to whose bodies, as they were brought in droves from the slave markets, they at once applied marks and brands." (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/3slaverevolttexts.htm) The war broke out and Sicily suffered a huge drop in their economy while funding the army an the weaponry needed for the army. In all, Slaves were mistreated and they needed to speak up and revolt. That is exactly what they did.

To recap and all of this, The slaves were beaten, Mistreated, owned ad traded like farm animals, and they had no use other than labor to the Roman Republic. The Romans could have developed their army, their empire, and their power without the slave labor. It just would have taken a longer period of time and they would have had to do the labor on their own. This makes the Romans just look extremely lazy to be honest. The Romans had a vast empire and plenty of wealth to fund more jobs for physical labor than paying the laves little money and beating them to death. The Romans we cruel, smart, and rich. They could have thought of something instead of slavery. Instead they led themselves into wars and their own fall.

MLA Citations:

• Plautus, Pseudolus, Act. I, Sc. 2- "Ancient History Sourcebook: Slavery in the Roman Republic." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. .
• Wikipedia.org (Book III, No. 94)- "Slavery in Antiquity -." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. .
• Slave Revolts- FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 25 Mar. 2010. .

Who is a Good Guy? Who is a Bad Guy?

The question “Who’s a good guy? Who’s a bad guy?” raises several points of discussion. First off, the answer really depends on a person’s point of view. What one person may consider a good guy, another person might consider a bad guy. Also what one person might consider a bad guy; another person may argue the statement and say that that person is a bad guy. I think that another thing that must be considered is circumstances. Something that someone might have done may be considered bad in one situation but if it was absolutely necessary, it may be considered a better thing. A person cannot be considered good or bad without seeing that person through all points of view, as well as the circumstances that the person is being judged on. 
The first thing that must be considered when answering this question is a different person’s point of view. An example is the Vikings. They killed many people constantly so that they could steal from them. They would invade their land, murder countless people, and steal their valuables and move on to do it again. To many people the Vikings would seem like bad guys. The Vikings however, might have considered themselves to be good because they were getting and doing what they wanted. Viewing this concept from both sides shows that people have their opinions on the matter and an answer cannot be decided on. Every person is entitled to their own personal opinion and if someone does not agree with your opinion it does not mean that anybody is wrong. Morally however, the things that the Vikings did would make them seem like very bad guys. Most people would agree on this one that the Vikings were bad guys but that does not mean that the Vikings felt the same way. A person’s own opinion is probably one of the most important things when stating who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. 
Another thing that should be considered when answering the question is the circumstances that apply to the action that a person is being judged on. With the Vikings all of the stealing and murdering they did was very bad. If the circumstances had been that they had had war declared on them, their violent actions may have seemed less bad. They would still seem like the bad guys to most people, but their actions could have been justified by some means. Since this was not the case however, they had done terrible things for no apparent reason. This makes their actions seem much worse than if they had had some sort of reasoning for doing this. Their actions were not provoked so they seem worse than they would have if they had been provoked. The circumstances of these two scenarios are different so that one situation makes them seem like bad guys, but the other does not make them seem quite as bad. These circumstances are equally important determining factors as that of a person’s point of view, because circumstances may change the wrongness of an action as well as a person’s point of view. 
Because of the two factors mentioned above a person cannot be considered a good guy or a bad guy until these two things are thought about because they may easily change the decision. Many people would consider the Vikings to be bad people because of all of the evil things that they did but one must be respectful of another person’s opinion because everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion. Although some people might seem like bad guys and some people may seem like good guys, it all depends on the things that play a role in the situation.