<p>which documents did u use to show no history</p>
<p>i kinda ran out of time so i wasnt really able to find a better document, now that i read it, it has no correlation what so ever about not having histroy, i wrote more about who said it then the actual meaning of the document, lol, im praying that they kinda zoom past it and give me my point for grouping, because other than that i think i got an 8</p>
<p>I made the 4th group just for the sake of having a backup to my 1st group (only Docs 1 and 2). I did mention Doc 4 in the same paragraph, but I doubt they’ll count it as part of my group.</p>
<p>Does anybody know if POV/Bias can be done like this: “Because this comes from a person’s memoirs written x years after the event actually occurred, the person’s ability to recollect may have deteriorated, so the account may not be entirely accurate.” I used this on the AP test, and it’s a bit too late to change anything, but I was wondering if this is OK.</p>
<p>I seemed to organize it differently than most people:
Democracy and how it didn’t fit the Political realities of Germany. (Democracy DID start overnight, history of strong ruler, rejection of militarism vs. militarism was the basis for the unification of Germany.) (Docs 1, 2, 4)
Communism and how it didn’t fit with the social or cultural realities of Germany. (world wide proletariat revolution clashes with volksgeist, nationalism vs. internationalism) (docs 3, 5)
Frusteration with the government for the above reasons leads to a desire for change and instability (docs 6, 8, 9)
The Nazi’s are the antithesis (dialectic shout-out) to the Democrats and Communist and fulfill the Germany people’s desire for Nationalism, A strong decisive leader, and militarism. (docs 7, 10, 11)</p>
<p>Can you get full points for groupings that are not in the rubric?</p>
<p>For the FRQs:
4: Mercantilism, Precious medals, shift in economic center from Italy to england, a short diddy about the role of naval power in mainting dominance in trade, and the subsequent shift in focus from the manor to the nation state. I only mentioned the triangle trade briefly.</p>
<p>7: Really messed this one up. Darwin-clashes with church, social Darwinism, imperialism, Nazis. Freud: overturned enlightened views that man is guided by reason, then I talked about how the strengthen romanticism and led to the rise of Nationalism and the consolidation of large nation states. Little did I know that Freud was after all that.</p>
<p>I split 4 into two parts, the downfall of Portugal/Spain and rise of England (and subsequently Europe as a whole). I think the general progression of economic power is Portugal/Spain to England (symbolic defeat of Armada). The Netherlands grew in banking and merchanting and continued into the 1700s, but were focused in Europe and Asia. France took a while to catch up, industrializing even after Belgium. Italy was never that dominant; it was too factioned.</p>
<p>^^ @mooble
LOL i’m very suprised at how simular our FRQs turned out to be </p>
<p>for DBQ
Germany was unified under militarism and a iron fist, there was a lack of a democratic tradition, a weak ineffectual government limited by the peace treaty burdened with debt
political radicalism from the left, rise of communism, economic failing lead people to turn to the communist party who wanted a revolution of the proleteriate
rise of the Nazis, how they opposed communism, convinced industrial leaders to join them, and their promise of returning germany to its former glory attracted veterans of the first world war.</p>
<p>and i did
4
Mercantilism, inflation, ending of italian monopoly on international trade, shift of power to the Atlantic side, Columbian exchange brought new luxury goods to Europe.</p>
<p>7
anti-thesis of genesis creation story, social Darwinism, cultural evolution through Memes, antithesis of enlightenment ideas of humans as creatures of logic, we are subdued by unconcious, id, bla bla.</p>
<p>DBQ:
4 groups: Pro-Weimar, Anti-Weimar, Concerned about apathy of German people, and Nazis</p>
<p>FRQ #3: (!!!PLEASE DELETE THIS IF I’M NOT ALLOWED TO POST THE QUESTION!!!) “Analyze the views of the different Protestant groups on the relationship between church and state in the period circa 1500-1700.”</p>
<p>Lutherans
-Martin Luther
-“Church is subordinate to state in all non-religious matters” - Confession of Augsburg
-E.g. German princes, didn’t have to pay tithe, could take church lands, could tax church
–major attraction for them to Lutheranism</p>
<p>Calvinists
-John Calvin
-Calvinist theocracy
-E.g. Geneva + Genevan consistory, theocratic gov’t, church + state = melded together, state punished people for religious crimes (e.g. heresy, missing church services, etc.)</p>
<p>Anglicans
-King Henry VIII
-State-controlled church
-E.g. England, King Henry VIII, King appointed bishops, didn’t pay tithe, seized church lands</p>
<p>Anabaptists
-Absolute separation of church and state</p>
<p>How much will it hurt me if, on the compare&contrast essay, I only really compared the two topics and didn’t explicitly contrast them at all…? What will be the highest score I can get on the essay?</p>
<p>I put power of the royal family too. I’m pretty sure that’s right, @taz, thank god someone finally posted it that Is EXACTLY how I wrote essay #3. I hope we did well ^_^</p>
<p>BTW, for essay 2, did you guys use Peter the Great westernizing Russia as an example of monarchs using science to legitimize and strengthen their power?</p>
<p>i didnt, i wrote about the scientific revolution and how the monarchs used it to their advantage and try to get a competition edge of the other countries and how the promoted new institutes to be created to enhance scientific ideas so that they can again help the state</p>
<p>i also wrote a little about the agricultural revolution, but i dont think that has anything to do with that</p>
<p>BTW, for essay 2, did you guys use Peter the Great westernizing Russia as an example of monarchs using science to legitimize and strengthen their power?</p>
<p>I did. but I put it under art >.<. oh well.</p>