-
2011年8月4日星期四
What Changes did the greeks make during the Greek "Dark Ages" (1100 BCE- 850 BCE)?
-1100-850 is a time of great changes in Greece; we have the advent of the Dorians in Greece,the destruction of Mycenaean civilization,the development of Protogeometric pottery and the appearance of Greek settlements in Asia Minor and Greek islands.Do to the invasions lead by the 鈥淪ea People鈥?some Greeks started to become more nomadic, many things such as the creation of art were slowed down in order to put all recourses into military.
Help with History Class?
-Okay so I will be taking AP world This year and Any tips you can give me like for me to help remember dates,names,etc.?palm cards; write event at front and date at back of card
mindmap
draw up a timeline
do past test papers
write notes
if theres a test guidline, then study that.
good luck bro. (Y)Try not to remember everything, just the main dates and main points, also what matters is not just facts, but also understanding why events happened and what the consequences of them were. Depending on how seriously you want to take this read some historical fiction based on the events of the era you are studying, that will help you to understand the events.
Don't try to memorize names and dates like a list. It's possible, but you're more likely to forget.
Instead, try to really understand the concept you're studying. That's the only proven way to make something stick. Also, if you forget names and dates but can articulate the concept in depth, you will still score a few marks.
record things your teacher repeats. write down things like trees of significant families. try to remeber things like important wars by knowing how many years(ww1 1914-1918 4 years) and important things will come before and after and just pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!! good luck
Just study every day and you will remember it, you also have to find it interesting that helps.
mindmap
draw up a timeline
do past test papers
write notes
if theres a test guidline, then study that.
good luck bro. (Y)Try not to remember everything, just the main dates and main points, also what matters is not just facts, but also understanding why events happened and what the consequences of them were. Depending on how seriously you want to take this read some historical fiction based on the events of the era you are studying, that will help you to understand the events.
Don't try to memorize names and dates like a list. It's possible, but you're more likely to forget.
Instead, try to really understand the concept you're studying. That's the only proven way to make something stick. Also, if you forget names and dates but can articulate the concept in depth, you will still score a few marks.
record things your teacher repeats. write down things like trees of significant families. try to remeber things like important wars by knowing how many years(ww1 1914-1918 4 years) and important things will come before and after and just pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!! good luck
Just study every day and you will remember it, you also have to find it interesting that helps.
What do you think of East Germany?
-It's like The Room only more Pulp Fiction-ier!It's like The Room only more Pulp Fiction-ier!East Germany is dangerous and full of poor people with anger built up. West Germany is much better.
East Germany is just as bad as Austria.
I don't think anything about East Germany, as it ceased to exist over 20 years ago when East and West united following the end of communism.
There's no such thing, that was made only by Russian communists, it's like if they would separate Italy or France into 2 countries.
It's in the dust bin of history, where all Communist nations belong.
East Germany is just as bad as Austria.
I don't think anything about East Germany, as it ceased to exist over 20 years ago when East and West united following the end of communism.
There's no such thing, that was made only by Russian communists, it's like if they would separate Italy or France into 2 countries.
It's in the dust bin of history, where all Communist nations belong.
What was the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and what was their importance?
-Slaughterhouse Cases, cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873. In 1869 the Louisiana legislature granted a 25-year monopoly to a slaughterhouse concern in New Orleans for the stated purpose of protecting the people's health. Other slaughterhouse operators barred from their trade brought suit, principally on the ground that they had been deprived of their property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Samuel F. Miller rendering the majority decision, decided against the slaughterhouse operators, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment had to be considered in light of the original purpose of its framers, i.e., to guarantee the freedom of former black slaves. Although the amendment could not be construed to refer only to black slavery, its scope as originally planned did not include rights such as those in question. A distinction was drawn between United States and state citizenship, and it was held that the amendment did not intend to deprive the state of legal jurisdiction over the civil rights of its citizens. The restraint placed by the Louisiana legislators on the slaughterhouse operators was declared not to deprive them of their property without due process.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright 漏 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
gatita
Degree in History and Spanish, New Mexico State U. 1990The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) were the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the federal United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it, but not those privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright 漏 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
gatita
Degree in History and Spanish, New Mexico State U. 1990The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) were the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the federal United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it, but not those privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.
Is there any extant evidence of atheist thinking before Diagora and Protagoras (5th cen BCE)?
-As far as I know, darling, there were explicitly atheistic schools of thought (at least two, if I remember correctly) among the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, and there are some passages in the oldest of the vedas, the Rig Veda, that suggest some acceptance of atheistic thinking.
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.As far as I know, darling, there were explicitly atheistic schools of thought (at least two, if I remember correctly) among the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, and there are some passages in the oldest of the vedas, the Rig Veda, that suggest some acceptance of atheistic thinking.
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.Well it's pretty clear that the ancient Greeks at least had agnostics....though they found it politically expedient to not make too much noise about it, as it was quite unorthodox and dangerous at the time: placing men, not gods, at the center of value judgments. As proof of just how dangerous this attitude was perceived, Protagoras was branded with impiety by Athenians and banished while all his works were collected and burnt. It was later philosophers, including Diogenes, quoting him, who have ensured his name has survived down to us. If other, perhaps less luminary agnostic/atheist thinkers existed, it is possible their works were more thoroughly suppressed. This is of course supposition...but of the type which historians and archaeologists are forced to make often, in order that they might define the parameters of their study...isn't it??
One of the things Diogenes reports Protagoras as having said is:
"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."
Which is still, to my way of thinking, a pretty good argument for agnostic atheism....and I'm a dyed in the wool pagan!!...lol.
Hmm, interesting question.
Don't really know anything about the history of atheism to be honest but a quick read of wiki's "history of atheism" raises a few nice points.
One mentions that there were Pygmy tribes in Africa that were found to have zero religious beliefs and didn't understand the concept of theism and didn't display any superstition. Then there's the religions that emerged in the far east that don't subscribe to the notions of gods either.
Logically, since theism is a human concept it's fair to say that atheism is as old as theism. Just like "immorality" is as old as "morality".
Wish I could've given you some nice quotes but maybe you'll find some examples on Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o鈥?/a>
...
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.As far as I know, darling, there were explicitly atheistic schools of thought (at least two, if I remember correctly) among the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, and there are some passages in the oldest of the vedas, the Rig Veda, that suggest some acceptance of atheistic thinking.
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.Well it's pretty clear that the ancient Greeks at least had agnostics....though they found it politically expedient to not make too much noise about it, as it was quite unorthodox and dangerous at the time: placing men, not gods, at the center of value judgments. As proof of just how dangerous this attitude was perceived, Protagoras was branded with impiety by Athenians and banished while all his works were collected and burnt. It was later philosophers, including Diogenes, quoting him, who have ensured his name has survived down to us. If other, perhaps less luminary agnostic/atheist thinkers existed, it is possible their works were more thoroughly suppressed. This is of course supposition...but of the type which historians and archaeologists are forced to make often, in order that they might define the parameters of their study...isn't it??
One of the things Diogenes reports Protagoras as having said is:
"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."
Which is still, to my way of thinking, a pretty good argument for agnostic atheism....and I'm a dyed in the wool pagan!!...lol.
Hmm, interesting question.
Don't really know anything about the history of atheism to be honest but a quick read of wiki's "history of atheism" raises a few nice points.
One mentions that there were Pygmy tribes in Africa that were found to have zero religious beliefs and didn't understand the concept of theism and didn't display any superstition. Then there's the religions that emerged in the far east that don't subscribe to the notions of gods either.
Logically, since theism is a human concept it's fair to say that atheism is as old as theism. Just like "immorality" is as old as "morality".
Wish I could've given you some nice quotes but maybe you'll find some examples on Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o鈥?/a>
...
George orwell, 1984. Please help!?
-What message through Winstons emotions was Orwell trying to convey? Please help me.... thx very much!Impotence in the face of the Party's overall dominance.Subservience to the will of Big Brother in the shape of O'Brien.
What happened to the farm industry after world war 1?
-For farmers, The Depression didn't start in 1929, it started much earlier. During World War One, American farmers fed all of Europe. Demand was high, and prices were great. Farmers increased production and land use to get as much profit as possible. They stopped rotating crops, and focused only on the crops most needed and profitable. When one crop is grown in one area year after year, that land gets drained of the nutrients the specific plant needs. Crop rotation was previously used to keep nutrients in the soil. No crop rotation, while profitable to the farmer during the war, abused the land.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.For farmers, The Depression didn't start in 1929, it started much earlier. During World War One, American farmers fed all of Europe. Demand was high, and prices were great. Farmers increased production and land use to get as much profit as possible. They stopped rotating crops, and focused only on the crops most needed and profitable. When one crop is grown in one area year after year, that land gets drained of the nutrients the specific plant needs. Crop rotation was previously used to keep nutrients in the soil. No crop rotation, while profitable to the farmer during the war, abused the land.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.What part of the world do you refer to?
In western countries from 1918 to now, farms gradually became much bigger and much more specialized. With new seeds and much better equipment, farms turned out much more with far less labour. Many, many rural towns died. People moved to towns and cities. The percentage of people framing dropped to record lows.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.For farmers, The Depression didn't start in 1929, it started much earlier. During World War One, American farmers fed all of Europe. Demand was high, and prices were great. Farmers increased production and land use to get as much profit as possible. They stopped rotating crops, and focused only on the crops most needed and profitable. When one crop is grown in one area year after year, that land gets drained of the nutrients the specific plant needs. Crop rotation was previously used to keep nutrients in the soil. No crop rotation, while profitable to the farmer during the war, abused the land.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.What part of the world do you refer to?
In western countries from 1918 to now, farms gradually became much bigger and much more specialized. With new seeds and much better equipment, farms turned out much more with far less labour. Many, many rural towns died. People moved to towns and cities. The percentage of people framing dropped to record lows.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)