This week we finished up our First Nations unit. We are going to be creating a test for ourselves. I think some may call that sharpening your own execution axe. After I thought about it some, though, I think it's better because you can make sure you know the answers to the questions.
We learned about the beginnings of agriculture, and some more tribes. This time, we learned of a very warlike tribe, the Iroquois. I thought most First Nations were really peaceful. So why are the Iroquois violent? And what makes us think all First Nations are peaceful? I think it was because of the discovery of Agriculture. It brought them the benefit of not having to be nomads anymore, but it also gave them leisure time, which (I think) may have led to starting to be so bored they get into fights. I don't think it's true, but would it be something like that?
I thought it was difficult to understand why (since the Europeans and the First Nations were the same long ago) they developed different beliefs about Nature and their relationships and religions. That's what I'd like to know.
I thought it was cool that the very same techniques could have passed down generations since the very earliest tribe ancestors, and still be alive today. I mean style of building canoes, huts, shacks, tepees or lodges, or hunting skills, totem poles, beliefs, recreational activities, etc. It blows my mind sometimes.
I admire the First Nations' belief that Nature should be treated with respect, and that everything is equal. Wish the whole world had that belief, then no one would really be living in poverty or hunger or cruelty. I guess the Europeans' belief won out, and the global majority (probably) holds this belief today?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
A very un-nomadic class
This week we presented our information on our chosen regions, and also reviewed what questions we had last week. Our group: Jeannie, Clara and I (no surprise there, huh?) chose Pacific West Coast because it was quite familiar to us already. Luckily everything is already on the Wiki, so I don’t have to do so much note taking. We started learning about culture, and the first nations. Oh boy, oh boy.
I think it rather confusing what with all the different tribes and their [different?] practises and religions. I guess this is one of my questions. They all seem so alike, but they do they each have different religious beliefs? Do they all have the same belief of protecting Nature and using every part of things they take, like buffalo, and trees?
I thought the “Plains” was quite interesting in aspects of food and lifestyle. They were really clever- they got the advantage of their environment to their gain. For example, the buffalo jump. The First Nations would dress like wolves and cause a buffalo stampede and eventually herd them towards a cliff where the buffalo just tumble over unknowingly to their deaths. (Well, I guess they’re ignorant, or otherwise why would they go over if they knew it was there? I suppose they think it’s better dying off a cliff than dying caught by the wolves, then.) And the Natives won’t even get hurt trying to hunt buffalo (which are quite dangerous at times), unless you count climbing carefully down the cliff to retrieve their food. This led to another question: A stampede would include a lot of individuals, so how do the Natives eat them all? How would they use it all? I’m assuming that they don’t like to waste anything either. Plus, they’re nomads, so they have to move frequently as long as that’s where their food goes. I guess they carry it all around until it runs out, then they’ll have to just repeat the process.
On the topic of food, I understand how the tribes in other regions would cut things, but how about the Plains tribes? Maybe they’d use the bones of buffalo, but it won’t be any use as a blade unless it’s sharpened. Would they use rocks, then? And to preserve the meat: How do they make fires, if they don’t use wood? Here’s my guess- instead of wood, they use rub rocks together and probably use the grass around them for fuel. I don’t think I’d know if I don’t experience living in the wild.
I think it rather confusing what with all the different tribes and their [different?] practises and religions. I guess this is one of my questions. They all seem so alike, but they do they each have different religious beliefs? Do they all have the same belief of protecting Nature and using every part of things they take, like buffalo, and trees?
I thought the “Plains” was quite interesting in aspects of food and lifestyle. They were really clever- they got the advantage of their environment to their gain. For example, the buffalo jump. The First Nations would dress like wolves and cause a buffalo stampede and eventually herd them towards a cliff where the buffalo just tumble over unknowingly to their deaths. (Well, I guess they’re ignorant, or otherwise why would they go over if they knew it was there? I suppose they think it’s better dying off a cliff than dying caught by the wolves, then.) And the Natives won’t even get hurt trying to hunt buffalo (which are quite dangerous at times), unless you count climbing carefully down the cliff to retrieve their food. This led to another question: A stampede would include a lot of individuals, so how do the Natives eat them all? How would they use it all? I’m assuming that they don’t like to waste anything either. Plus, they’re nomads, so they have to move frequently as long as that’s where their food goes. I guess they carry it all around until it runs out, then they’ll have to just repeat the process.
On the topic of food, I understand how the tribes in other regions would cut things, but how about the Plains tribes? Maybe they’d use the bones of buffalo, but it won’t be any use as a blade unless it’s sharpened. Would they use rocks, then? And to preserve the meat: How do they make fires, if they don’t use wood? Here’s my guess- instead of wood, they use rub rocks together and probably use the grass around them for fuel. I don’t think I’d know if I don’t experience living in the wild.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Nomads and Human Migration- I mean ancient.
You know what, I think I might just regret I ever thought history would be boring. Ah, typical stereotyping.
This lesson we learnt about ancient human migration and watched more spooky skeletal movies. Just kidding- but we still watched lots about how archaeologists uncover these ancient artifacts to prove that their theories are correct. Still, it may be proved wrong one day. Can it?
Nomads are people who "think with their stomachs", that's how Mr. Smeed put it. That is, they would travel no matter how far, as long as they have food. So back then, guess the only purpose for the natives was to hunt and work mainly for food.
Unless I wasn't paying attention, which I (think I) was, I now have a question about why people bothered to move at all. I mean, if people managed to live even staying in Africa (which there WERE some people who did), why did they even bother to travel anywhere else? Sure, they follow the food, but if there was food in Africa, why take the hard way to get it? Is it because they wanted excitement? Possibly they wanted the particular game that moved in that particular route? Then if everyone had, would that mean we'd all be Negroids today? (A note: Negroids are native, or native-related people to Africa, Caucasoid are the same to Europe and Middle East, Mongoloids to Asia, Australoid for Australasia. It only applies if you're of that blood, however distant as long as you're "Aboriginal")
Guess they wouldn't be Nomadic anymore if they don't move, though.
Then we started talking about "ice land bridges". This means the connection, the portal between the Old World and the New World. In simpler terms (starting to sound like math), that would be the Bering Strait, Beringia. People would only be able to cross when it was all frozen, which complicated things by a mile in the least. This is called a legendary Ice Age, when for some or no apparent reason, everything in the Northern Hemisphere freezes up into glaciers. During our last one, it blanketed North America nice and warm (or would it be cold?). Only over Northern Hemisphere, though. Why would that be? Would it be a scientific reason, a philosophical one; a metaphysical one; a religious one?
Anyway, Ice Ages rival global warming (go for it, Ice Age), and it decreases the sea level because most of the water just gets stored in the ice. This very Ice Age 17,000 years ago caused the ocean to drop, uncovering new land that connected Siberia to Alaska. This was 18,000 years ago. As time progressed, though, the Ice Age slowly began to end, the water slowly filling back Beringia. By 10,000-9,000 years ago or so, the land bridge disappeared. People had to have come before that time, if the theory is correct, because otherwise how would they have come to the New World?
A lot of people seem to wonder how the land just disappeared. Poof! It makes me confused, because I thought it "disappeared" because the ocean rose back to its original elevation. I mean, before the Ice Age, wasn't the land bridge invisible, covered by the sea like it is now? (Guess people will have to keep making more theories to answer all this.)
Here's my bet, if we just dried up the Pacific Ocean, we would find the ocean floor beneath (after a LOT of drying up), right? That might just as well be a "land bridge" too. So what I'm trying to say, is that may have applied just as easily to Beringia. Unless, of course, some person finds proof that Beringia Land Bridge has ALWAYS been there even before the Ice Age.
I'm sorry if my post seems a bit disorganized (which it is).
This lesson we learnt about ancient human migration and watched more spooky skeletal movies. Just kidding- but we still watched lots about how archaeologists uncover these ancient artifacts to prove that their theories are correct. Still, it may be proved wrong one day. Can it?
Nomads are people who "think with their stomachs", that's how Mr. Smeed put it. That is, they would travel no matter how far, as long as they have food. So back then, guess the only purpose for the natives was to hunt and work mainly for food.
Unless I wasn't paying attention, which I (think I) was, I now have a question about why people bothered to move at all. I mean, if people managed to live even staying in Africa (which there WERE some people who did), why did they even bother to travel anywhere else? Sure, they follow the food, but if there was food in Africa, why take the hard way to get it? Is it because they wanted excitement? Possibly they wanted the particular game that moved in that particular route? Then if everyone had, would that mean we'd all be Negroids today? (A note: Negroids are native, or native-related people to Africa, Caucasoid are the same to Europe and Middle East, Mongoloids to Asia, Australoid for Australasia. It only applies if you're of that blood, however distant as long as you're "Aboriginal")
Guess they wouldn't be Nomadic anymore if they don't move, though.
Then we started talking about "ice land bridges". This means the connection, the portal between the Old World and the New World. In simpler terms (starting to sound like math), that would be the Bering Strait, Beringia. People would only be able to cross when it was all frozen, which complicated things by a mile in the least. This is called a legendary Ice Age, when for some or no apparent reason, everything in the Northern Hemisphere freezes up into glaciers. During our last one, it blanketed North America nice and warm (or would it be cold?). Only over Northern Hemisphere, though. Why would that be? Would it be a scientific reason, a philosophical one; a metaphysical one; a religious one?
Anyway, Ice Ages rival global warming (go for it, Ice Age), and it decreases the sea level because most of the water just gets stored in the ice. This very Ice Age 17,000 years ago caused the ocean to drop, uncovering new land that connected Siberia to Alaska. This was 18,000 years ago. As time progressed, though, the Ice Age slowly began to end, the water slowly filling back Beringia. By 10,000-9,000 years ago or so, the land bridge disappeared. People had to have come before that time, if the theory is correct, because otherwise how would they have come to the New World?
A lot of people seem to wonder how the land just disappeared. Poof! It makes me confused, because I thought it "disappeared" because the ocean rose back to its original elevation. I mean, before the Ice Age, wasn't the land bridge invisible, covered by the sea like it is now? (Guess people will have to keep making more theories to answer all this.)
Here's my bet, if we just dried up the Pacific Ocean, we would find the ocean floor beneath (after a LOT of drying up), right? That might just as well be a "land bridge" too. So what I'm trying to say, is that may have applied just as easily to Beringia. Unless, of course, some person finds proof that Beringia Land Bridge has ALWAYS been there even before the Ice Age.
I'm sorry if my post seems a bit disorganized (which it is).
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
First Time Blogging in History Class
Well, we've decided to make a blog for our social studies history class as well. This time, though, we got different groups. I'll miss you old guys!
Anyway, these posts will be much shorter in length, and all we'll be saying is what we thought was hard, easy, and what we don't get. No feelings or thoughts to write. Aww...Okay, to get to the point.
This class we were learning about evolution of the human species. Just yesterday I watched a movie called "Being", about where scientists predicted where the first humans came to being (according to them, we all came from Africa). Well, we learned our earliest descendents were the monkey family. I thought the concept of the knowledge was quite easy to understand, but of course I still get some doubts about what scientists think. Though the majority (I guess) approved this theory, it doesn't really mean its true. It's cool, but still blows my mind how monkeys can change into humans. If that's the case, then why are there still monkeys existing? Shouldn't every monkey now be a human? Plus, I don't get how we could have this level of intelligence if we were once monkeys. I asked my "elders" this, and they said that because we had to adapt to our environment, our brains slowly became adjusted to these conditions and facts so we'd have that knowledge. Would level of intelligence and knowledge be improved over time then?
The biggest question and vast enough to fill every corner of the- well, universe- would be: Would we ever discover what our past was? And what would it be when (if) we found out?
Anyway, these posts will be much shorter in length, and all we'll be saying is what we thought was hard, easy, and what we don't get. No feelings or thoughts to write. Aww...Okay, to get to the point.
This class we were learning about evolution of the human species. Just yesterday I watched a movie called "Being", about where scientists predicted where the first humans came to being (according to them, we all came from Africa). Well, we learned our earliest descendents were the monkey family. I thought the concept of the knowledge was quite easy to understand, but of course I still get some doubts about what scientists think. Though the majority (I guess) approved this theory, it doesn't really mean its true. It's cool, but still blows my mind how monkeys can change into humans. If that's the case, then why are there still monkeys existing? Shouldn't every monkey now be a human? Plus, I don't get how we could have this level of intelligence if we were once monkeys. I asked my "elders" this, and they said that because we had to adapt to our environment, our brains slowly became adjusted to these conditions and facts so we'd have that knowledge. Would level of intelligence and knowledge be improved over time then?
The biggest question and vast enough to fill every corner of the- well, universe- would be: Would we ever discover what our past was? And what would it be when (if) we found out?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
