AP: How to Write a Continuity/Change-Over-Time

In our final installment for the AP World essays, today's topic is the Continuity/Change-Over-Time essay. A CCOT is different from a C+C; instead of showing similarities and differences between two subjects, this type of essay will have you show how two or three subjects were similar, but either continued in one way or changed in another. Basically, it's a more sophisticated C+C that requires a lot more thinking. You'll have to not only compare two subjects together, but also show how one society began to change while another remained the same in the same era. Don't worry, though; this time I have examples!

To plan out this essay, you have to look at the question. For our case today, it is this: How did the societies of Europe and Asia, specifically China and India, continue to be the same and change during the Post-Classical era? The question is already setting you up for success here; it's giving you three places (Europe, China, and India) and having you compare and contrast between how their societies grew or stagnated. Historically, Europe and India had many similar systems of government in this era (eras are important!), while China changed vastly and became quite different from the two. By knowing this from studying, you can now craft a decent thesis as well as some context sentences:

"The society of Europe in the Post-Classical Era had many similarities and differences compared to the societies of Asia, specifically in China and India.  Europe and China had few shared traits in the way their societies functioned during this time period.  India, however, had many policies and systems of government at the same time that they occurred in Europe.  While Europe and India continued to have similar governments and economic problems, China changed and developed a strict centralized government and gained social equality in the Post-Classical Era."

Did you see how I used what I already knew about Europe and Asia and wove it into context? This can help set up your claim, and provides info to the testers that you know what you're talking about.

Let's start with the COT part of the essay. I already mentioned first in my thesis that Europe's government, along with India's, continued to have problems while China's government changed and flourished. I can combine the differences with Europe and China and similarities with Europe and India into two paragraphs, effectively making my essay only three paragraphs long.

With Europe and China's differences, I'll need to start with an opening sentence: "The governing system of Europe was much different from the government established in China." I can now go from here to include evidence to such differences. I'll only include one example here, but I recommend yu use as many as you can possibly remember (like 5). Here's the example:

"Europe is described by Bentley as having 'built a decentralized society as they sought to protect their lands and maintain public order during a period of weak central authority and periodic invasions from outside (their continent)'.”

While in the exam you cannot use textbooks to help you with evidence, your sentence should already sort of sound like this. You then follow with a conclusion sentence:

"This shows that Europe was more focused on keeping invaders out and retaining land, and was not able to have a stronger unified government, instead relying on multiple leaders to enforce laws."

You then rebuff with the statement on China, with evidence and conclusion:

"This is not the case in China, which Bentley states was 'brought under centralized rule (by Yang Jian)…the Tang and Song dynasties organized Chinese society so efficiently that China became a center of exceptional agricultural and industrial production.'  China was so completely unified and organized that they became a production superpower during the Post-Classical Era, a far cry from the situation in Europe."

This is then followed by reasoning, as you need to also explain why Europe and China were so different even though they were connected by the Silk Road:

"The reason for these different centralized and decentralized governments probably is due to China not being under pressure from invaders during this time period, allowing them to focus more on organizing the state, while Europe was more focused on keeping order during invasions than organizing central rule."

With that, you move on to the next piece of evidence, and so on, until you run out of ideas. You can then conclude the paragraph with a assessment of your claim: "Thus, Europe had a much different governing system compared to that of China’s during this turbulent Post-Classical Era."

The same goes for Europe and India. You'll have an opening sentence ("Europe and India were very similar in the way their governments and history occurred."), a statement for why they are similar/continued they way they did ("Both Europe and India had a significant early Empire fall due to invaders."), evidence, and then a reasoning for why this is. Go through around the same amount of evidence, and then conclude the essay with a reiteration of your claim. You don't need a concluding statement for the whole paper, but you can if you wish.

With that, you're probably wondering why C+C is different from CCOT. Well, they really aren't. The College Board just want you to be able to understand how some societies were very similar at the same time while others were always changing. The set up of the essay is also much different. But if you practice long enough, you'll be able to write a CCOT in no time!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Historical Review: The Poisonwood Bible

Today's review is over a personal favorite of mine, Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible. This book takes place in colonial/independent Congo, and follows the stories of four girls as they adapt to the tension-filled atmosphere of Africa. This book is amazing in how the girls all become a part of Africa, and looks deep into the US' involvement in the containment of communism and whether or not it was morally right. At the end, I'll guarantee you'll feel bad for being an American. I know I was. Enjoy!

DISCLAIMER: You know by now.

I considered myself a good Christian. While I went to church on Sundays sparingly, I did a lot in my community for the name of Christ. I tried donating and volunteering, and not swearing quite as much. I never thought to convert any of my friends or family because I respected their opinions. But this book has opened my eyes to what forcing religion on other people actually does not only to them, but also to your own family, with dire consequences. The Poisonwood Bible, the chronicles of a mother and her four daughters as they live in the Congo during its Belgian occupation and the reigns of Lumumba and Mobutu (spanning from 1959-1990), not only challenges the deep-seeded morals of religion, but also the morals of the United States and its “democratic” dealings with the country of Congo/Zaire from independence to dictatorship.

I found that every character in this story seems to be searching for their own redemption in the Congo, whether they admit it or not. As it goes, not one of them gets it. This shocked me, as I’ve never read a story where not one, but almost all of the main characters never got to their goals of life. But I also learned that Africa is not a forgiving land. The people are different and strange, the grounds hard to tend, and the customs almost as far from Christianity as you can get. I felt almost frustrated myself reading, time and time again, how the Prices were ostracized and cast out, but then remembered the almost evil desire in Nathan Price’s mission to convert Africa against their will to a religion they didn’t understand. As the Prices fall further and further from the light, the dealings in Congo seem to mirror their efforts. Even with independence, the Congolese become enslaved again. The daughters all complain at length about their shortcomings, and they all seem to be indifferent to what is going on around them. Do they know that Congo is not the US? Do they know that their mission is hopeless? The themes of loss, regret, and growth go hand in hand in this book; where a loss is regretted, the characters grow a little. It only takes a big loss for the Prices to completely evolve, a loss which, I will admit, shocked me. Kingsolver’s own time in the Congo shows through here, and I feel that the personal experience definitely helps give the story ethos, and her diction/palindromes are exquisite.

A book very similar to Poisonwood is The Ransom of Mercy Carter, a story hundreds of years and miles away from the Prices. It focuses on the kidnapping of the title character and her life in an Indian tribe in colonial America, but is essentially the same story: she experiences losses and regrets similar to the Prices, but in the end makes her own growth to stay where she calls home. The only difference is that Mercy has a happy ending, while the Price’s is bittersweet. Still, The Poisonwood Bible has affected me on both a political and spiritual level. I don’t think I can ever give Communion again without thinking of the Congo, and at the end of the day, I think that’s exactly what Barbara Kingsolver wanted.

I would definitely recommend this book if you're learning about Africa! It really shows how bloody and violent the US' choices ended up being. Also, try switching from Congo to Zaire and back within 40 years; it's not fun.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

AP: How to Write a Compare/Contrast

Yet another one of the three essays you must know how to write for the AP World History Exam is the Compare/Contrast essay. In this format, you must take two ideologies (for instance, economic policies in Asia and Europe in the 1400s) and not only compare them, but also explain with examples how they are also different. Like always, you won't know the subject of the essays when you go into the Exam; at this point, you'll have to rely on your knowledge of the subjects alone. It won't be easy to remember all of the info you need, but if you have a clear head and a good idea about what you want to write, you'll be able to get a 7 or above no problem.

To begin, I'll come up with a C+C question (no example this time; my bad): Compare and contrast the governing policies of the Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty in China from the 1600s-1800s. It's not perfect, but it resembles a C+C essay I did in class during my own AP World stint. Before you even begin writing, make a Venn diagram off to the side of the paper. The testing people allot about 10 minutes to plan your essay, so use this time to think, not panic. Consider the following thoughts:

• What made the Ming and Qing dynasties similar?
• How were they different?
• What were their styles of government?
• Did the Qing and Ming interact in any way?
• What were events that compared/contrasted between these years?

Using these, you can fill in info on the Venn diagram that relates of dissents from each other. Try to keep like info together so your thoughts don't get cluttered into a mess. Next, you can write a thesis statement. Remember, you can change this at any time; just direct the reader to what you want to be your thesis and they'll be able to understand. Here's an example thesis, which comes after at least two contest sentences:

"The Ming and Qing dynasties both governed with an iron fist over the Chinese people, although the Ming became lazier as time continued on while the Qing became more militarized and strict in the late 19th century."

This is not a very good thesis, as I am completely pulling it out of my ass, but for this example it'll work (check out "How to Write a Thesis" if you want to learn better). As you can see, the similarity between the Ming and Qing was that they were strict with their citizenry, while the Ming became lazy and the Qing grew more powerful. The bolded portions are the paragraphs you'll have to write to prove your thesis as logic based; that's why you don't load it up with info or you're backing yourself into a wall.

As far as paragraphs go, you'll need to bring forward evidence to support your claim as well as statements dedicated to connecting your thoughts together. In the strict paragraph, I'd consider 10 pieces of evidence (5 for Ming and Qing equally) and 5 statements proving how they compare and support your claim. The contrast paragraphs would have more evidence for one topic (at least 7 for both) and explain how it makes the two different in government. In the final paragraph, you can have a concluding sentence that rewrites your thesis and shows how your essay just proved it.

As always, it's important to study up on all of the eras of history. In exams like this, the testers don't care if you don't know the subject well enough; that just makes your exam easier to grade. If you follow these instructions for the Compare/Contrast paper, I promise that you'll have a good enough essay for you to get a high score. However, if in doubt, ask a teacher for help.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Historical Review: Unbroken

Yes, another book review, this time over Laura Hillenbrand's Unbroken; the tragic story of Louis Zamperini and his experiences in WWII and beyond. This is a great novel to have your students read during their WWII unit; it truly shows the lengths to which soldiers fought to survive and how the views of all countries involved got tangled up in a mess of a war. It also provides great foresight into the conflicts that the world has today; a little bit of history repeating itself, no? Without further ado, I give you the review.

DISCLAIMER: Also made for a language arts class. I apologize again.

Both of my grandfathers were veterans. My paternal grandpa, Larry, served quite luckily between Korea and Vietnam; my maternal, Stu, was drafted for the latter. Larry always loved talking about his time in the service, mostly about all of the people he met and planes he worked on as a mechanic in the Air Force. Stu never spoke once of Vietnam, and I found out through my mother that he was a medic in the Army stationed in Saigon. I found it funny that Stu never wanted to talk about his experience in the war, yet Larry was an open book. With age and experience, I learned why. But even Stu’s experience in America’s bloodiest war is eclipsed by Louis Zamperini’s trials and tribulations in the book Unbroken. To be on top of the world, only to be shot down, left afloat for weeks and beaten to near-death is something only a psychopathic masochist would envision as a story; Zamperini lived it. His story is exceptionally conveyed with Hillenbrand’s tone and diction, as well as several subtle changes in mood/plot that honestly made this book one of the most surprising I’d read since The Kite Runner.

            Hillenbrand’s writing was, hands down, why I loved this book. Here we have a story of a WWII POW who had an exceptionally interesting life on top of all of his wartime experiences. He was no Patton or MacArthur, just a regular old soldier. If given to any author, Zamperini’s story could have been ruined with too much suspense or bad choices in dialogue. Hillenbrand, however, is the master of both tone and diction. When writing about Louie’s early life at home, there is an often wistfulness in the writing, as if we were truly reading a memory. When the book switches to Louie’s time running, the tone matches with that of a tension-filled challenge; the words build suspense and leave the audience breathless by the end of his race. Louie’s time in the service and the internment camps set forth a tone of melancholy, as these men deal with life changing (or life ending) situations and face a foe worse than the Devil. I honestly enjoyed how fluidly Hillenbrand’s writing changes to fit with the chapter, and her jumps to the future and back are well done; normally, I hate books that do this. Her lack of all tantalization also helps out when reading Unbroken, as I always knew what happened to a character and wasn’t disappointed in being proven wrong (I swear I thought Phil was going to die at least 3 times). From a funny/nostalgic beginning to a mournful middle to a bittersweet end, Hillenbrand’s tone and diction really helped carry this novel to its finest.

            A book I could relate to Unbroken is The 5 People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom. In both books, the main characters deal with their inner demons and come out on top in the end, albeit one is only doing so after he has died. I would also say that Unbroken is much better written, but both books have qualities that I enjoy (Albom’s character development in particular). Before reading this book, I thought I had an idea from my grandparents how war truly is. After Unbroken, I don’t know if I’ll ever see it the same again. Private Texas was right; war is hell, but Louis Zamperini went through worse and came out the other side unscathed. Thanks to Hillenbrand’s tone and diction, I’ll be rereading this book for years to come.

Definitely have your class read this book if you want them to cry. I know I did.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

AP: Writing a DBQ

Historical Review: Beloved

In this post, I'm going to be delving into the depths of historical fiction! While it may not be quite as accurate if, say, the book was nonfiction, depending on the writer the books can be very accurate when teaching about a certain era in history. Today's book will be Toni Morrison's classic Beloved, a tale of former slaves yearning to escape their inner demons. (I will admit, I did not enjoy the book, but I loved the post-Civil War era that Morrison chose).

DISCLAIMER: This was originally written for a language arts class. Sorry if it gets a little dense.

It’s not often that I’ll dislike a book involving history. I especially enjoy stories set in the early days of the US, when the wilderness was wild and the people were larger than life; they speak a character to me that I feel has been lost by modern principles in all of their cybernetic glory. That said, I could not bring myself to enjoy the book Beloved. It had everything I could love in a novel: a post-Civil War story involving former slaves being haunted by their past in the form of a lustrous poltergeist; at least three subjects rolled into one book. But no matter how often I scrutinized the tone, diction, and imagery of Toni Morrison’s award-winning “masterpiece”, I just couldn’t see it. I couldn’t see why I was supposed to care for any of the characters at all, and got extremely caught up in Morrison’s attempt to glamorize her own writing with dense descriptions and not-so-subtle allusions. For all intents and purposes, I was just plain bored.

                The problem for me began with the characters themselves. Almost instantly upon opening the first chapter, I had at least seven people thrust upon me with so much fast development that I was re-tracing my steps to see who was related to who by page 15. The novel’s focus on the widowed Sethe and her daughter Denver, and Sethe’s fellow slave-turned-lover John D, almost seems stretched too thin. Because of this, I felt no connection to any of them by the end of the first chapter, and this ended up being a major problem when Morrison tried getting me to play sympathetic. The tone of regret and remorse is also just poured on way too thick, and it made me nervous that the sadness I would feel for Sethe and her years of torture at her plantation and her possessed home would be misplaced (as I found out, it was). The point I’m trying to make here is that it just seems faked; as if the characters are in a bad play and trying their hardest to emote but just can’t do it right. The character of John D was also a thorn in my side for much of the novel, mostly because his mood swings involving his love/hate for Sethe detract from the main message of the author. A message which, for the life of me, I still don’t know.

                But I could forgive all of this, if it wasn’t for Morrison’s writing style. In short, I hate it. In length, it reads like an edgy teenager decided to research about the Civil War, became obsessed with ghosts, and then tried replacing every simple noun with the most outrageous synonym imaginable (with a few f-words and n-words thrown into the mix) without even trying to form a sentence that conveyed realism. Granted, Morrison is an honored author, and I am a lowly English student, but if a student can see through the boring allusions of the book to grasp what little plot exists and still can’t find the purpose, then perhaps the student is not the right audience for such advanced writing. Even such imagery as Sethe’s “tree” (scars retained from the whippings at Sweet Home plantation) is so forced that I felt like I was being spoon-fed a metaphor every two paragraphs. Hell, even the name “Sweet Home” for a plantation is so blatantly a symbol that I laughed when I first read of its existence. I did not laugh at the baby’s name.

                To be quite honest, I haven’t read a book quite like this, nor would I choose to. If I had to compare it, it seems more in line with the filth that is A Separate Peace by John Knowles. Both novels take place historically (Knowles’ in WWII), and involve characters that deal with regret and anger at how life has given them the short end of the stick. The difference, however, is I chose to read Beloved, and even with all of its faults I could at least see development of a coherent story. The names Gene and Finny still haunt my nightmares to this day. So yes, I did not like Toni Morrison’s attempt at a historical novel, mostly due to her writing. Among the red badges and soldier’s hearts, it doesn’t capture the image of the Civil War and all of its aftermath; rather, it focuses too much on sending a message to those living almost a century after it.

So, in the end, while the book has a colorful setting in the post-Civil War society, I would NOT recommend you have your students read this. Unless, of course, you want them to read about a lot of sex.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

History and Religion: Adhering to Conflicting Views

It always happens in at least one class. When you get to a touchy subject, there will always be that one student whose religion disagrees with whatever you're teaching. Sometimes, the student will not care; they'll absorb and learn the info, but disregard it based on faith (or, if you get a REALLY good student, they'll be open to differing opinions and may change their mind). But many times, the student will take it upon themselves to be their class' "savior": outbursts over your material being wrong, refusal to compromise, threats of civil suit, etc. While usually condensed to science courses, religious arguments are often found in history class. Many find the idea of Abraham basing the Jewish god Yahweh on a Persian god sacrilegious; many Christians will agree. The mere mention of Muhammad having child brides can send an Islamic student over the edge.
What I'm trying to get at is that teaching about history can be tough when it involves religious figures that are still quite popular. Students may have been told from a young age that this is what they believe in, and anything trying to "disprove" it should be met with scorn and denouncement. But there is a way you can teach about religious history without being called a pagan. It only takes Understanding, Compromise, and Education to break through to those who need to learn the material, but refuse to.

Understanding

The point of teaching history is to give your students a full picture of what came before them so they can better prepare for the future. When a student refuses to actively participate in learning about something they disagree with, it can be frustrating for teachers to understand why a student would get so worked up over something. As a personal experience, one of my fellow classmates refused to learn about evolution in Biology because they believed in Creationism. I'm a Christian myself, and I had been fed the Creationist view, but I rejected it because it didn't make sense to me. However, I could understand that the student most likely didn't want to experience their whole belief being brought into question, or didn't want to realize that they themselves didn't believe it. If teachers can come to the understanding that some students don't want to lose their whole faith in one day, then the process of their teaching can continue unabated. In these situations, either let the kid go or figure out a compromise where they can learn about the subject in a way suited to their beliefs.

Compromise

Let's say you and your student have come to an understanding between faith and history. Now it is time to find a common ground where you as a teacher will not upset the student and where the student will respect the material they are given. A lot of people seem to think that only the student's views are affected in situations like this. It's often hard for them to see that the teacher's whole lesson rides on the participation of the class and for them to see that there exists more than one opinion on a subject. They learned all of these things in college, where they spent years refining their craft, and are now teaching it to as many people as possible so we don't enter another Dark Age. To compromise religious views and historical understandings, a compromise from both parties needs to occur. The student could only participate in material that is irrelevant to their religion and then leave the room when it becomes too touchy. The teacher could structure their lessons to avoid saying certain things when the student in question is present that would upset them. While it's never fun to have to bow over to make sure students learn something, at least they're learning. But the best way to go about a compromise is with education on all differing views involved.

Education

Even with compromise and understanding, it's your classroom. Just teach about all of the conflicting viewpoints WITHOUT any pandering opinions. Don't imply that one side is more right than the other, or that one side is very flawed; if you can keep it very neutral, everyone will benefit. The war between faith and fact will never be over, so it's in the best interests of everyone to just teach as much as you can about Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad. If you and your students can have a professional level of involvement, you shouldn't have a problem with conflicting views.

Religion is a slippery slope. History, however, shouldn't have to slide backwards every time it tries getting over it. With Understanding, Compromise, and Education, you can adhere to all of your students without having to worry about a lawsuit. Just be careful about what you say.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Using Your Brain

In history class, we oftentimes have to rely on only one source for a subject: our brain. At the end of the day, this 3 lb mass sitting in our heads is the best way to get that last answer on a test of remember the name of that one king from a long time ago. But many simply choose to guess without thinking on a subject just to get it done. Why?
When all else fails, your brain is there to save you. It can be difficult sometimes to truly find an answer that is correct, but as long as you made the effort to think, you'll be fine. We give our brains too little credit; they can remember quite a lot of things, including history. So how can you use your brain?
Before a test, after the studying is all done, give your brain a good night's rest. Have breakfast in the morning so it's sharp, then get in there and ave your history exam!
Really, that's all. Its not rocket science to know how to you use your brain. But don't rely on it alone! Studying is always the first step for your brain to learn something!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Lesson Idea: Black Tuesday Game

On October 29th, 1929, the US' stock market crashed, and with it went the rest of the world's economies. Millions and millions of people lost their jobs, their homes, and in some cases, their lives. As the world struggled to come back from the brink, the US particularly had a hard time coming to terms that not everyone could be "self-made", and a deep-seeded distrust of banks and investments was begun that still prevails into 2016. Many historians also point to Black Tuesday as the beginning of Nazi popularity in Germany, due to Adolf Hitler's promises to restore Germany with his Third Reich throughout the early '30s. Once again, a great way to teach about this to your students is with a historical game (I'm obsessed, I know)!
The point of this game is to help students learn about the Roaring '20s and their subsequent fall from grace, which ended up causing much of the conflicts that occurred in the early 20th century. Banks invested without car, alcohol was illegal, and gangs ran wild; all of this was born and died within 10 years. I suggest that as the game progresses, you tell the students of events and central ideas they must connect with this era so they will have a better idea of what it actually was when they're tested over it.

The name of the game is this: you can NOT tell the students what this game entails. The investors on that October day didn't have the foresight to prepare for the crash, and neither can your students. In fact, I'd avoid mentioning the '20s unit at all if you can, just so they can be blindsided better. In place of Black Tuesday, you can call this game "The Investment Game". Here are the rules:

• Students each get $1,000 (preferably in Monopoly money) and are given two ultimatums: they can get an extra $1,000 dollars for not participating in the investments, or put the money into your own stocks to "earn twice as more". Really try to sell the idea of investing!
• Set up your own stocks for the students to invest in. The minimum they can invest is $1, but they can keep putting in as much as they want. You can call them names (like DOW or JFK), but in the end they function like actual stocks. The only difference is that you determine their value from day to day.
• As the students invest, try subliminally favoring those who end up with "smart" investments, so they'll end up investing more. The goal is to get all of their money invested over several stocks.
• Encourage the students to also have others invest for them based on what they consider "safe". These students will unwittingly play the role of the banks.
• After about a week, have your "Black Tuesday". Tank all of the stock values until any students who invested would only get a fraction of what they originally started with.
• As the panic ensues to get any amount of money that's left, offer to buy all of a student's stocks for a minimal fee-nowhere near the original amount-and watch as those who stayed out of the stock market gloat.

After the final rule, the game is over. The students will either be penniless or loathed, and then you can launch into your lesson about the Crash and the Depression. If you could fool them, it'll be a success: the students will now identify with those who also lost money, albeit in the real world. However, I don't take responsibility for making them hate banks.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: How to Summarize

Teachers will oftentimes require their students to write about a specific era of history. Now, you can show off all you want about your knowledge of history-as you should-but you can't get too carried away in what you're trying to explain. Teachers don't want to read more than they have to, and may become frustrated that they've wasted more time grading your summary than they did for 5 others.
Summarizing isn't very difficult to master; the name itself means "to give a brief statement" about a topic. A summary never usually goes on beyond a paragraph, nor is it shorter than a sentence. In this paragraph, you'll need to tackle basic ideas and concepts you've learned in history class, and most of the time these summaries will resemble AP World Definitions, only longer. Just for fun, I'll summarize the Eighties in around 3 sentences:

The 1980s was a decade of human history that contained both feelings of change and hope for the future and conflict among many of those considered superpowers. Under the leadership of Reagan and Gorbachev, communism as a governing body was ended in Europe towards the end of the decade, and the economies of the world went through a roller coaster of fluctuations as many prepared for the new European Capitalist Renaissance. However, in the Middle East and Asia many conflicts and wars took place, and by the end of the '80s there was a feeling of distrust towards the US due to their action or inaction in them; these feelings still exist to this day.

While it isn't perfect, you can probably see the gist of my summary. I kept it within 3 sentences, mentioned important people and topics (capitalism, communism, wars in the Middle East), and demonstrated an understanding of the era at hand. When you summarize, keep these 3 points in mind. They could either save you from writing to little or from going overboard, much to your teacher's appreciation.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

AP: Writing Short Answer Responses

In AP US History more than AP World, Short Answer Questions will determine your understanding of history in the moment. With nary a textbook or guide, you will be given a question that will test you on your knowledge of historical events and themes and how you can connect ideas together to form a coherent response. Basically, you need to use your own memory to answer these questions correctly, but it's not as hard as it sounds! What students balk at is the amount of short answer questions on the APUSH test; there are normally 3, broken up into 2 or 3 parts per question. Students are given about 20 minutes to answer all of them, which causes many to begin hyperventilating, and most either putting in minuscule effort or avoiding them entirely. But instead of panicking and giving up on the question, you just need to stay calm, focus, and follow these steps to ensure that you answered them to the best of your ability.

3. Plan Out Your Question

Many students go into the AP tests without a plan of action to follow and help keep them on course for a 5. These students will then come across the short-answer questions and panic, usually resulting with less desired results. But if you look and study the question for 2 minutes, you'll be able to put an answer together in your mind that actually makes sense. Here's an example of a SAQ you would see on the APUSH test:

How did 2 of the following events affect American identity in the 20th century, and how do they compare?

• The Great Depression
•  World War II
• Vietnam

Before anything, analyze the question. You'll discover that it only wants you to compare 2 of the 3 events listed below it, so any you were more vague about can be crossed off. It also requires you to know how the events affected "American identity" and how they compared to each other. In my opinion, I would choose the Depression and 'Nam, as they both caused Americans to become dissuaded by the government and made many question their self-worth in their respective societies. By taking a few minutes to go over the question, you can already begin to have an outline ready, and a basic idea of what you need to write, with enough time left to write a response.

2. Short but Elaborate

Getting ready to write the question can be easy, but actually doing so can be quite challenging. A lot of students believe that writing long responses without going very deep into their subjects suffices for a good statement. They are wrong. The people grading your test can see through responses where the person obviously knew little about their subject, and making it very long will only make it worse. When writing, being quick to the point yet still elaborate enough to answer the question is the way to go. An SAQ should only be about 5 sentences, and in those sentences, you can be as blunt or eloquent as you want. These are based on your knowledge, so I cannot tell you what to write, only what you should follow.

1. Answer ALL Parts

This is something that should be well understood, but isn't. When the question has multiple parts, you don't only answer one part unless specifically instructed to do so. Most SAQs are 3 parts, and you'll lose a lot of points if you only answer one. Pay attention and be prepared to write at least a paragraph per question.

The most important part of SAQs is to not panic. It's just a little writing over things you should already know and understand. You'll be able to get through it if you follow these three steps.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Lesson Idea: Counterculture Activity

In the last Lesson Idea post, we covered a "Conformity Activity"-basically an experiment to see how long your students could conform to your own rules before breaking them, all so they could better understand how groups like the Nazis or the American govt. could control their populaces in the early 20th century. Today, we'll be expanding on that with "Counterculture", or, "who can be the most different?"

In history, counterculture was often looked to as the thing people did to express themselves and/or to express an idea. In the 1960s and 1970s, this was the Hippie movement; the 1980s was Punk, 1990s was Grunge, and the 2000s and today are the Hipsters. In all cases, the members of these groups wanted to be different than the mainstream culture (the conformers), and showed this by the clothes they wore, the music they listened to, or any amount of things that would label them "different". For students today, it can be hard to fully understand why people gravitated towards counterculture, so it's in your best interests as a teacher to give them a chance to see it firsthand.

The goal of this activity is to teach students about how being different was appealing to people, and how they used this to their advantage to raise awareness on touchy subjects or make statements on worldwide events. It can also show that even by being different, people were still conforming to ideals, just ones they were interested in. I suggest performing this activity right after you do the conformity one, though both can be used separately for their own respective units. Therefore, the endgame of this activity is for one or more students to be the most different from their fellow students as possible. Here are some rules to follow (you don't necessarily have to-they are here for a guideline):

• All students start exactly the same, with the same interests, activities, etc. (useful with Conformity activity).
• One student is chosen as the "catalyst"; they can choose what they like and how they express themselves, albeit within the limits of school rules.
• Students who appeal to this new "movement" can join it if they like, but they'll only be able to stay with this group for the rest of the time.
• Students can come up with new ways to distinguish themselves from the rest of the groups and even within their own group; if needed, they can have the option of leaving their group to go solo.
• After three days or so, the student/s who is/are most different from their classmates wins.

Beyond this, this activity is free reign. Students can wear goofy sunglasses, backwards shirts, weird hairstyles, or anything else they appeal to. They must also choose a topic, however silly it may be, to represent and either support or protest it (ex.: Johnny protests the use of mechanical pencils to return us to a "simpler time" with No. 2s). At the end of the activity, the students should be able to understand the historical significance of counterculture, and how it affected people in a very strange way. While there is much we still don't know about the appeal of it, with this activity, the history of the Rebel Societies can be taught to your students in a fun and interactive way.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Thesis-a-Night

Whoever tries practicing something outside of sports? Usually people always do the "one and done" mantra to get by, but at a certain point when do people decide they want to get better at history? For those who realize that history is not a subject you can normally get by on without a night of studying, the problem becomes what exactly they should do to help them practice their thinking skills. Therefore, I bring you "Thesis-a-Night", a guaranteed way to get your dose of history without wanting to kill yourself!

To begin, find a scrap piece of paper. Next, go to Google and search the term "history thesis questions". You should be able to see some choices for past thesis questions on AP Exams or regular tests; write down any you think look interesting or relate to your current unit of study. Next, take one of these questions, and answer it. Not just from memory, though; you're going to actually have to do some research in your textbook to find the correct answer. If you think it's too much work, you don't seem to understand why writing a thesis can be important. Thesis statements are used primarily to present the claim and argument of a person, and in history this can pertain to relationships between historical events or conspiracies. Only if you can convince a reader with your thesis that you're credible and understand the material you've been presented will anyone take your opinion on history seriously. Plus, that extra research can add a little more knowledge to your brain that can come in handy later, and could even help prepare you for an actual test.

Thesis-a-Night usually takes about half an hour to an hour, but it's well worth it. It can help you with your writing, your knowledge of history, and what you should do to make your thesis credible. If you have any problems with writing a thesis, there are some great resources around the web just by using that same Google search, or you could check out another Quick Tips entry, "Writing a Historical Thesis". If you don't want to do any of that, then just read part of your textbook. You might as well try to learn something.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Using Music to Define Eras

Music: it's been around as long as consciousness, and shows no sign of losing popularity. Since the beginning of history, people have been making music, and in the process have shaped the way that we view the world. A Classical piece often invokes the idea of sadness or dark times; the smoothness of Jazz recalls a simpler time when people had fun and got in trouble. It's these types of connections that make categorizing history into its musical eras that make history that much more fun; I mean, who else doesn't think of the early 2000s when they hear Smashmouth's "All-Star"? Or the Woodstock-like euphoria of the Sixties when Simon & Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson" comes on? The point is that humans are a very specific animal; once we attach something to another thing in our mind, there's no way to get it to un-attach. In this way, music can make history fun, as it not only allows the listener to hear the undertones of the music, but it also involves listening to popular music. I would give my life to have a history class like that. While it's completely up to you to decide how music defines history, you must consider the following things: what makes it special, what is it saying, and who did it appeal to? For starters, I'll give my own 2 cents on the historical music thing, but we'll start a little closer in the 1900s in the US:

1900s-1910s: Typically folk music or orchestral pieces in this era. They spoke to the cultures of the world, like the Irish tune "Danny Boy", as well as to the hierarchy of society with sophisticated pieces involving whole chamber orchestras. It can help represent how the early 20th century was full of people trying to fit in, either by embracing their culture or becoming something greater.

1920s: While folk songs like "Old Man River" and orchestral pieces survive into this era, the "Roaring Twenties" are more defined by the creation of Jazz. People like Louis Armstrong used brass and wind instruments to create either a lively, upbeat feeling or a sad, downtrodden one (blues). As the decade neared a close, jazz defined the era as one of a never-ending party, that unfortunately came to a screeching halt.

1930s: Jazz and orchestral pieces survive into the Depression era, while the latter is more pertained to the blues. Songs like "Minnie the Moocher" vocalize the feeling of being cheated in a society that's gone down the drain in a matter of years. The folk songs of previous eras are beginning to evolve into country music. The era can be defined by this music as one of reflection and hope, as war begins to loom near the end of it.

1940s: As war has begun, music began to change with it. Songs became more upbeat and lively, as demonstrated by "Boogie Bugle Boy", and as people began fighting for freedom, songs expressed their inner excitement to matter in the world at large. After the war, the songs slowed back down, and country began to make a more dominant appearance as orchestral pieces went on their way out.

1950s: Welcome to the 'Rock 'n' Roll' Era, so named for the music that defined it. As people like Elvis and Little Richard gyrated their hips and pounded out beats, parents were appalled while kids fell in love. On the other end of the spectrum, people like Johnny Cash belted out their regrets and desires to twangy country/rock music, as the US fought a war of societies abroad. This decade's music helps show the rage against conformity and the beginnings of the Free Life Movement.

1960s: Rock 'n' Roll has been mastered, and the British Invasion brings the Beatles and the Stones to revolutionize the industry and the country. The counter-culture movement gains traction with "free-wave" music; music without boundaries, as hippies and their musical counterparts begin proposing world peace and love. The decade ends in a cloud of drugs and paraphernalia that has begun hard rock and the beginnings of pop rock, and the Sixties with their music will always be groovy.

1970s: As the previous decade wears off, musicians become either very mad or very happy. People like Eric Clapton and Led Zeppelin sing their issues with society out into radios everywhere, and the counterculture lives on in Liberation movements. On the other end, musicians like Elton John help show the lighter side of life with pop music like "Crocodile Rock", and as the uneasy Seventies come to a close, their music defines them as very schizophrenic and confused. The very beginnings of rap music are heard.

1980s: The introduction of hair bands and synthetic rock really define this era. The futuristic sounds of hard/pop rock lead to stars like Madonna and Michael Jackson gaining popularity as the US sets its sights for the future. Bands like U2 help set the stage for alternative rock, which continues the 70s style of rock without any 80s influences. As the populace is told "Don't Stop Believin'", many do with how society functions. This era is much like the Sixties, with cocaine instead of weed. Heavy metal also becomes prominent, and rap is gaining speed.

1990s: Grunge rock takes hold in this era, as alternative rock boots out synthetic and heavy metal becomes even more controlling. Rap makes a big rise as more and more people lose touch with their idyllic societies, and the world becomes very cynical (as evidenced by the whole of Nirvana and NWA). Pop is less popular, but sticks around as hard rock becomes split between alt and metal. This decade is largely depressing.

2000s: The new millennium, the new fear: pop takes back control of the airwaves, as do many other genres, as satellite radio makes them available to all. As terror takes hold, alt rock begins to slow down, but rap continues riding out the decade thanks to Jay-Z and Kanye West. Rap even becomes incorporated into pop music as parts of choruses, and into the Recession many are becoming less cynical and more optimistic. The decade can be defined as scared but recovering.

2010s: The decade isn't finished yet, but alt rock and pop/rap are the top of the charts. Singers like Taylor Swift and One Direction begin to change the industry and turn it almost into a machine.

Again, this is all opinion. You can define the eras as you see it, but use the impact of the music in your reasoning. Just because it sounded good doesn't mean it defined anything!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Lesson Idea: Conformity Activity

What better way to teach your students about history than how people were forced to be the same? Mostly known within the US, the idea of conformity arose during eras of history where people became scared of the unknown-scared of the differences between themselves and others. What resulted was a system where those straying too far from the path were punished, usually very badly. But unlike what most people think, this ideal was not limited to the US; the USSR had its fair share of conformity issues while pledging to be a "Utopian" society. So, it's crucial for your students' understanding to be able to teach this subject of recent history and have it make sense. More often than not, a teacher will try to tell of conformity when they have lived on its receiving end, and the bias is VERY real. To make this as unbiased as possible, you need to leave your opinions at the door and listen to an idea from someone who never lived through it. I know that sounds absurd, but trust me-it's what's best for the students.

To begin, you'll need a basic outline. Let's say this activity takes place in the community of "Anyville", where everyone conforms to a certain set of rules in the face of ostracizing. These rules are as follows:

• Absolutely no talking when the teacher is talking.
• Students must raise their hands to answer a question and keep them so until called upon.
• No complaints against the teacher's decisions.
• Any crude noises (sneezing, coughing, etc.) will be met with a warning. Three warnings=punishment.
• Students must always agree with the teacher, no matter what opinions they possess.

The lesson should take place over the course of a week. During this time, I suggest that the teacher teach any sort of outrageous dogma-it could even relate to the unit at hand. For example, you could teach of McCarthyism as if the man was a saint or Communism as a Godsend-either way, try to be as unpopular in your opinions as possible. The point of this lesson is to see how long it will take for students to break conformity, and how their fellow classmates will react.

In this case, you can have three outcomes. The Bad Outcome is when, after a student breaks conformity, the rest of the class gang up on them and chastise them for their "crime". This means the students have accepted conformity and you have a lot of explaining to do to their other teachers/parents. The Neutral Outcome is when their are a fair amount of students who break conformity, but are not ganged up on or chastised; rather, the class realizes it was a mistake and moves on. While not ideal, it means the students have understood conformity in the scholarly way. The Good Outcome is when all students break conformity; not only does this provide a perfect segway into the Sixties (for those in the US), it means that your students still have free will, and recognize the dictator-like rules you've put in place.

As history learned from conformity, nothing good really came of it. Unless we want another Joe McCarthy or Joe Stalin on our hands, this activity can be a good way to show your students the impact of it on even a small group of people. If you want any more inspiration, show them the German film Die Welle (The Wave), which delves further into conformity with modern fascism.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Study, HARD.

I can't stress this enough. You need to study for history class. Period. No buts about it, you NEED to study. Why, you ask? When you've done tips in the past saying it's alright to skim or take pictures or memorize?

Because at the end of the day, you will be tested on what you KNOW about history, not about what you've tried memorizing for the past two hours. Time and again I've experienced that fresh knowledge escaping my short-term memory the minute I need it, but the stuff I've committed to actual study time has stayed by my side. So yes, you can go and take pictures of a study guide that you won't finish, or skim a reading that you really can't afford to skim, but what ARE you really learning? The tips I write about are mainly for students who're already good at history. They're the kids who get As all the time, who read what's required, and who put in a lot of effort. These tips exist for them to help make the subject even easier to comprehend, and for those who need help with writing or reading a chance to show that they aren't stupid. These tips, however, are not a replacement for study. Some nights, when the history homework has gotten really hard and you feel like you're not learning anything, you need to stop, calm down, and STUDY. Just read, write, take notes, anything, as long as you feel like you're actively learning about history. The dates and names and periods aren't hard if you commit at least an hour or two to trying to understand. If you've tried and failed, try again until you get it right. We've become so much of an instant gratification society that students will give up the minute they don't "get" a subject immediately. Don't let that be history. Any study will show you that it's not impossible.

Sorry for the rant, but my friend had just texted me about how he couldn't pay attention to a book for over two minutes. I wrote this for him or anyone who needs help with how to study.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Lesson Idea: Monarchical Succession (a la Risk)

In history, there have always been people who want to be in control, so much so that they'd be willing to kill for it. Usually, these people will either become kings, queens, or anything in between, and they can range from the most peaceful leaders to ruthless dictators. Because of its vast significance in shaping almost all of the regions of the world, it's important for students to be able to comprehend their importance. Not only have the leaders of the world decided the outcome of the future, but they may also have set precedents still being followed today (the Magna Carta and William III come to mind) or outwardly banned (Hitler and eugenics come to mind). So, what better way to teach these almost polar opposite ideals than an upgraded game of Risk? (Yes, the Ukraine is not a game to you*)

To set up Monarchical Succession, we'll follow the basic rules of Risk. The regions are still the same (North America, Eurasia, etc.) with the exclusion of Antarctica. However, due to the length of regular Risk, this game will be limited in length to preserve the purpose of the lesson and the teacher's sanity. There will also be governing bodies as players instead of singular play. They go as follows:

• Democracy: Begins in Greece, with an elected leader.
• Monarchy: Begins in the UK or France, with the oldest student as leader.
• Stateless: Begins in Africa, with everyone as co-leader.
• Dynasty: Begins in China or Japan, with the oldest student as leader.
• Dictatorship: Begins in Italy, with whoever the teacher chooses as leader.

The goals of Monarchical Succession is to show how governments worked in history, and how many times it was extremely hard for the "commoners" to like or appreciate one person in charge. The name is derived from the British line of succession, and how it was almost completely chaos until just recently in historical accounts. The end goal is to take over the world, but the real winner is whoever was able to have the least amount of succession "squabble"(basically, who can go in a straight line). The rules are as follows:

1. Democracies must hold an election for leader every four turns, between two students. One student can only be leader for a consecutive 8 turns before giving someone else a chance. Once everyone has been leader, they can choose past contenders. If the democratic system is disrupted, the government becomes a dictatorship.
2. Monarchies are a little tricky: the leader must choose their successor, who will take over whenever the current leader sees fit. If the heir-apparent is disliked by everyone else, they can try overthrowing them or the leader; however, in order to remain a monarchy, the new leader must choose a new heir. Failure to do so turns the government into a dictatorship.
3. Stateless societies have to work together in order to function, but if one student shows constant leadership, they can be given the option to become a government. They also cannot invade other countries until such an option is chosen.
4. Dynasties are also tricky; like monarchies, the leader chooses their heir, who takes over when appropriate. However, a "shogunate" can be formed within the group to represent the real leader if the "emperor" is disliked; any attempt to overthrow the other turns it into a dictatorship.
5. Dictatorships are pretty self-explanatory; the leader can do whatever they want and can "banish" group members for disagreeing. If deposed, can be replaced with any other government or a new dictatorship.

Besides these rules, the rules of Risk remain the same. The added learning/fun comes in trying to see the students stray as little as possible from their established rules, much like governments in real life did. However, they'll all discover that they have their own little Cromwells and Maos within their ranks, and by the end of the game (or as close as you can come to the end), there should have been at least one coup in each group. The group that stayed the closest to their governing succession wins, no matter how much land they conquered.

The real point of this game is to show how leadership in history was messy: at one point in time, you could never trust that the guy in charge would stay that way for long. Even today, when Presidents and Queens can seem immortal, you never know when a change of hand can occur. Food for thought.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

*This scene from the show "Seinfeld" shows Kramer's own little game of Risk, and how it went so wrong.

AP: Writing a Significance Statement

Along with definitions, significance statements are of the utmost importance in AP History classes. While not as relevant in APUSH, in World they can be one of the things you're graded on for understanding the concepts of history. What stumps many students is what they should write about in their significance; basically, they have to choose what is more important over another, relegating the answer to an opinion piece. So, you have to ask yourself: why is this thing I'm writing about significant? What has it done historically to be mentioned in my textbook and been required for me to know? Due to the nature of significance statements, they can often confuse students, causing an under-par answer or complete avoidance ("It's too hard!"). The thing is, you WANT to be able to describe significance; if you can do that, you're already on your way to understanding history in context. In fact, writing about significance can end up being one of the easiest things you can do with practice!

To begin, a significance is much like a definition. It is roughly 3-5 sentences long, and you must be able to include context (who, what, where, why, etc.). The big difference is, while definitions are very straightforward, significance asks you to look at the cause and affect of an event: what did this event do to change the world and how was it existing so world-changing? Most of the time, the historical event either changed something that made the world better, or made the world worse. However, students can still understand an event, yet misinterpret their significance due to their own conclusions. Here's an example of a significance statement over Agriculture:

"The significance of agriculture is that it helped humans transition from hunting and gathering societies to civilizations. Many cultures were also able to survive droughts and famines thanks to agriculture’s solution to food surpluses (storing excess food for later). The influence of agriculture caused many changes to jobs and tools, with such jobs as scribe and potter being created and more useful equipment made to help farm crops, like the hoe and the plow. And even though it started slow, it emerged across the globe and helped kick start civilizations."

This significance may not look bad at first glance, but if you examine the sentences more closely, you can see why this statement is incorrect (yes, even opinions can be factually proven wrong). While 3 sentences, it could be reduced down into 1 based on its similar info, which is already a bad sign. There is also a very bold statement ("helped kick start civilizations") that cannot be used with such limited information; what evidence does this statement provide to show that agriculture did such a thing? The little amount of information provided in this statement makes its argument weak, and while the student (me, unfortunately) may have understood the history of agriculture, was not able to translate it effectively into significance.

Now, for the good statement, on Serfdom:

"Serfs were significant because they helped establish the concept of manors, which were large estates of land where the serfs could work and be monitored.  Before manors, lords had no way of knowing or stopping a dispute between some of his serfs quickly enough, and his authority was hard to keep over long distances.  With manors, though, lords and deputies (assistants of the lord) were able to police and provide justice to any quarrel in the estate, keeping the serfs in line, and all of the lord’s serfs were located in the same area, allowing the lord’s decrees to be heard by all of his serfs and making it easier for serfs to travel to the lord with rent or harvest."

The difference in this statement is bluntly noticeable. Not only does the statement follow requirements for length, it immediately proposes how the existence of serfs benefited another area (the manor system). By also having a before and after, the reader should be able to see how the very presence of serfs changed Europe, and by extension why they are significant. As a plus, there aren't any bold statements.

With these examples, you can hopefully see that significance statements aren't hard; you just need the right information and the right context in order to make sense. In fact, it only takes about 3-5 statements before you can start getting into the groove of things, and whenever you're tested on the historical significance of serfdom, you can have me to thank!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

AP: Writing a Definition

In AP history classes, you may be required to write a Definition of a term. If you remember how you do it in normal classes, you may think that this will be a breeze. But in AP World, it isn't this simple: teachers want an example of a college definition. So, what IS the difference? In this post, you'll see examples of good and bad definitions, and what makes one better than the other. Even though you don't need to write one for the exam, this can be important for the entire year, to not only show your teacher your progress, but to also begin to understand the subject of history.

There are many ways to write definitions, but sometimes students do't know where to start. In AP, a definition usually requires different effort than in normal classes. For instance, it calls for important facts involving the term, a timeline of events (from beginning to middle to end), who/when/where the term affects,and other relevant information. AP teachers usually want you to write these in about 3 to 5 sentences, to minimize irrelevance and "fluffy" language. If you can keep the term short, sweet and to the point, it demonstrates how you already are understanding the content material.

Here is an example of a "bad" AP definition:

"Agriculture began around 9000 B.C.E as hunting and gathering societies began to settle and become more permanent. It involved domesticating plants like wheat, lentils and rice and animals like sheep, pigs and cattle for work and food. It emerged independently in areas such as the Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, and Africa."

If you couldn't tell, the term for this definition is Agriculture. You may be wondering why this is a bad definition. If you use the guidelines I listed above, you can see that it only covers partial requirements. It mentions the where, but not a specific who (hunting and gathering societies are too vague of terms) and a little bit of what (the plants and animals are alright, but what else was there?). The time period is mentioned, but there isn't an example of the middle or end (in this case, agriculture didn't end, so that's okay). Finally, it may be spread out over 3 sentences, but these could all be combined into one sentence to give the background of the term; more relevant information could then come in the next sentences. In a normal class, this definition would be acceptable, but in AP, it only shows a crude understanding of what the course expects.

Now, here is an example of a "good" definition:

"The Germanic Tribes were invaders of the Roman Empire who grew into Kingdoms and replaced the Empire after the last Roman Emperor was overthrown in 476 C.E.  These tribes included the Visigoths, who took most of Spain, the Lombards, who established territory in Italy after the defeat of the Ostrogoths by Justinian, and the Franks, who were located in most of France and part of Germany.  Originally a smaller power, the Franks grew under the leadership of Charlemagne, who conquered much of Western Europe and established the Carolingian Empire in 800 C.E.  Due to familial disputes and invasions by the Muslims, Vikings, and the Huns, however, this Empire declined and eventually dissolved in 843 C.E."

Can you see the difference in this definition? The term here is Germanic Tribes, and it hits most if not all of the requirements for AP definitions. The who, what, and where are clearly mentioned, with a beginning, middle, and end (476 C.E-843 C.E.). The first sentence provides the basic information, while the second and third provide some more important/relevant information that demonstrates understanding of the material. The fourth sentence helps bookend the end of the Carolingian Empire, and thus the Germanic Tribes as a whole. While it may be missing some more detailed explanation, it is quick and clear while also giving enough information for the reader to comprehend the subject. Basically, it clearly defines the term, and would be acceptable to turn in as homework.

It's all about specifics in definitions. If you aren't specific enough, you'll lose understanding, but if you're too specific, it'll be harder to understand. By following the guidelines for AP definitions, you'll be able to write them in no time, and without even thinking twice about the steps needed. Take it from a person with experience!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Hollywood History 2: The Redeeming Quality of Clichés

The movies are not known for their historical accuracy. In the last Hollywood History post, I talked about how films like the Renegade and Titanic have made history fun again, at some levels. But I only lightly touched on the inaccuracies part, simply ignoring it for the sake of the topic. Nowhere else in movies are historical inaccuracies as well located as clichés: re-used and recycled, but rarely reduced, gimmicks in movies used for as much as plot movement and as little as a sight gag. At the time of the first post, I didn't really mind what Hollywood had to do to historical stories, as long as people were able to understand the story and be inspired by them to learn more. However, I realized that audiences may like a story portrayed in film, but then only base their knowledge of the subject on the film alone, and be inspired for all of the wrong reasons. So, I looked into common Hollywood tropes used in films-the damsel in distress, dramatic hero, sacrifice, etc.- to see how they detract from the learning experience of a historical movie. Instead, I found it can actually be a good teaching tool.

We've always been taught that "history repeats itself", my tired mantra, and it can sometimes be really good or really bad (mostly the latter). Hollywood also seems to repeat itself on this cycle, usually when in one summer one could watch only '80s remakes or sequels without an ounce of originality. But time and again, there comes a film, be it historical or not, that uses an obscene amount of clichés but still ends up being good. Why is this? For films covering history, it's actually quite clear-the clichés are what make the movie fun. Sad but true, no audience wants to watch a film that is completely accurate to the source. If someone made a shot for shot re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War, unless there were a lot of fighting scenes, no one would want to see it. The fact of the matter is that history can be boring, but Hollywood has the special ingredients needed to help make it more appealing to everyone, everywhere.

For instance, take the movie Waterloo. Made in the 1970s, it follows the life of Napoleon Bonaparte from his first exile to Elbe to the Battle at Waterloo to his crushing defeat at the hands of the British and the Prussians. In real life, the time period of all of these historical events covers years and years of decisions, which were mostly un-saturated with any character development. But in this movie, there are strained relationships, gory fighting, and emotional impacts that makes movies enjoyable. In fact, these tropes exist in all movies: there will always be the unlucky hero (Napoleon), the main villain (Britain), and enough side developments to fill you in on an entire world that you may not have even heard about before. What comes with these tropes are inaccuracies, sure; Napoleon was far from a hero, and I doubt that any non-famous locals had their names repeated endlessly as if they were a war veteran. But considering that the story of the Battle of Waterloo has now been shown to millions of people, it makes learning about it in class so much easier. Yes, the teachers will have to dispel the wrong details, but that's what you have to do normally, right? Use this interest in a historical movie to help teach your class even more. As for students, you can use your Internet skills to find out even more about this movie that you love, and how it was either completely butchered or done perfectly. Hell, even movies like Amadeus use clichés to make it better; would a person willingly watch a movie about Mozart and Salieri unless they were both completely insane?

In the end, I still had the notion that re-stylized tropes aren't good in some cases, but I also found that in others, it's completely necessary to keep people's attentions. Hollywood tells stories in giant and wonderful ways; they aren't bound by the history textbook. If you can learn something from them, learn that the next time you see a damsel in distress, you remember how real life would've been like.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

AP: Using Review Books to Study

As the AP exams for World and US History are coming ever closer, I've decided to create a new subject for blogs-"AP", where I'll post about my experiences with the two classes as well as ideas for students to make AP easier to understand and pass. I guarantee that with enough studying and preparation that you can get a 3 or higher, even without my help!

This leads us to today's topic. In AP World and APUSH, you always end up getting a very big and very imposing textbook; one that's always hard to carry around and whose writing seems to be that of a droning college professor (I'm looking at YOU, Bentley and Strayer!). When it comes time for normal testing and the AP exams themselves, many students become frustrated that they can't understand what they need to based on the textbooks alone. Add this to a teacher who hasn't taught AP well, or a history of bad grades, and many will either opt not to take the test or give up and get a 1 or 2. But what a lot of students don't realize is that there's a whole range of books to help prepare them for the exam, and they can all be found at a local bookstore. I'm talking, of course, of the AP Review books that have so enamored the AP students, including history, with their ease and effortlessness in condensing whole subjects into chapters.

AP Review books can either be your worst enemy or your greatest ally and tool. Students will sometimes take the fact that review books exist and only use them to study and for their homework. Well, this can work, but what if you have to write a paper using only the textbook? If you only use the review book, you'll find it will just be as difficult to understand the subject as without, only you'll just be remembering the core information with the former. That's all these books are, really-they help students learn about the core events of history by leaving out a lot of the other stuff. In fact, the APUSH review book I have says very little about WWII and the European/Pacific Theaters, but more about the role of the US at home. This can be good and bad; good if I understand what WWII is outside of the US, but bad if I only take the review book at face value. The writers of these reviews even say that textbooks are more important; if reviews were more important, they themselves would be the textbooks!

So, how do you use them? When studying for a test or exam, the review books come in handy quite a bit. Entire units that would be several chapters in the textbook would be, as I stated, shortened to fit one chapter. They cover all of the things that the College Board wants you to know on the subject, and will give their own little asides/tips on how to study. AT the end of each chapter, there's usually a practice test of 10 questions to see if you've retained the information; re-read the chapter if you score a 6 or lower. Above all else, there are also 2 full length exams in the book; you can take both of these in preparation for your exams in May, or take them apart from each other to see how well you would do at your current understanding of the history subject. Working together with the textbooks, these reviews do wonders; they'll be able to explain the hard-to-understand concepts and can provide another opinion from the author of the textbook. They really are great studying tools!

If you plan on getting a review book, there's many different publishers or options you can choose from. I personally recommend "5 Steps to a 5" and "The Princeton Review" for your choices; they both go in-depth in World and US History and the latter has entire chapters devoted to writing essays and how to study. Other brands, like Barron's, are also acceptable, but I never liked the layout of the information and the lack of many tips for studying. However, you are the master of your own fate; don't let a person on the Internet choose for you! As long as you use these reviews with your textbooks, you'll be fine in class, and as a nice tip, they work great when studying for normal tests as well! So get out there and get ready for Exams with review books!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Taking Notes on a Video

We all hate when the teacher rolls out that 30 year old TV to the front of the class, sticks in a warped VHS, and forces us the watch 40 minutes of interviews with old people and black and white pictures. It's even worse when you have to take 20 notes of the whole video, and turn it in at the end of class. How could you possibly glean all of that information from one viewing? Well, as I've said often, work smarter, not harder: much like taking actual notes in class, focus on what it important and only that.

For instance, one of these note sheets will usually have an outline over what the teacher is looking for from viewing the video. This means that this information is what they WANT you to know; everything else must not be as important for your learning or else they would've put it on the sheet. All you need to do, then, is listen for key words from the questions, like this:

2. Who was President in 1933?
3. Why did the banks not give people their money?

The bolded parts of the questions are the key words, and they'll usually be said either by the narrator or the interviewees in the documentary at one point. If you miss an answer, move on; someone will have gotten it and you can get the answer from them, or search it on Google with what little time you have left. What's important is that you learn and record what the teacher is looking for, because that's what they want you to learn; everything else can be focused on at another time and place. All I know is, we've watched 5 of these things in APUSH and I'm starting to get tired of it!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Teaching World History in Regular History

Truthfully, many of the post here on Historical Friction are based in American history. Being and American myself, it's hard to try and remember what I've learned outside of my own country's history. Thankfully AP World helped me learn more, but for many people, world history is foreign to them. They don't know what the Battle of Hastings is, or who Charles de Gaulle was. This is why world history should be necessary knowledge for everyone, everywhere, not just those in the US. As usual, it comes down to the teachers and what their curriculum requires, but in order for history to be better understood, it's their job to make it simple for even a kindergartner. Here are a few suggestions to help give your students the necessary knowledge of history without going outside of your teaching plan, even for those who are already world history teachers.

1. Provide Background Information

Non-World History: There are many countries in the world who share roles in historical events, some good and some bad. Because of this, their history course will often overlap each other, but at mention of other countries, many teachers won't even discuss what the contribution was; the home country always seems to get priority. This is evident in many American history classes when discussing the Revolutionary/Civil War, as England is either painted as the supreme tyrants or barely mentioned at all. So, the next time you teach a class on an international experience, go further. Reach outside of your bounds to the curriculum to teach the class about what other countries did that caused theirs to intervene. For instance, the US only entered WWI in 1917, a year before it ended. If a US History teacher only taught about America's involvement, it would seem as though our entry was the beginning of the end. Nowadays some teachers have gotten smarter, and will switch to a "World" history format for events like this; we focused on Europe and played the "WWI Game" in US History for a week before we got into the American part. It makes it not only more informative, but more eye-opening to how some things we once saw as a local effort were actually a global one.

World History: Provide more info on the eras you teach. Many times world history teachers will skip a subject or only glance at it if it puts them off schedule. Even if it takes the bulk of class, teach these kids about it. For those in the US, it will help them as they go into US History the following year, as many of those overlooked events (like the opening of Japan) had involvement from the States.

2. Be Internationalist

Non-World History: What I mean by this is, "Don't act like your region of history is the only thing important." What good is it to praise Brazilian history only to spit on Cuban history? I get it, you may have a favorite subject in history; we all do, even myself (the 1960's, man). Does that then give you the right to say it is the only "important " history? Tying back into the previous section, more than one country was in wars/crises/any historical event ever. It's almost akin to censorship by leaving out their role and idolizing yours. Basically, the idea of internationalism is a strong tie between international cultures, and it usually leads to the strengthening of alliances between them. By teaching the goods and bads of history equally, without bias, you can teach the students a lot more without straying to far from your lesson plan.

World History: Considering internationalism is a main term, you should already be doing this. Just do it MORE.

That's it. Yes, you only need two steps to help make the history of the world become a part of your students' learning, even if you aren't a world history teacher. Why is it so short? Because it's implied that as a teacher you're doing this already. My APUSH teacher, Mr. Benedict, will often go into the background of why the US is interacting with a certain country, and will admit when the US was in the wrong in history. That's not even required in his curriculum; he could only focus on the US and I'd be more knowledgeable of my own past, but intolerant of another's. So, world history helps teach tolerance. If we want to move forward as a society, we all have to learn it, and it's up to the teachers to guide us.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Historical Figures: Saints or Sinners?

Christopher Columbus. Abraham Lincoln. Mohandas Gandhi. All of these men, plus thousands more across time, went into the history books and became immortalized. In history class, we often used to hear of the contributions to the subject these people created, and how their lasting impact is still felt today. But were historical figures really heroes? Were the enemies we learned of, like Genghis Khan and Kaiser Wilhelm, really as bad as they say? The problem with history is that it is always written by the "victor"-the group or groups that emerged in history above all the rest. There's an old saying that goes, "You never hear from the prospective of the prey," an incredibly blatant truth that many either choose to ignore or haven't heard of. Both students and teachers of history must understand that everyone, even those from antiquity, aren't perfect, and that it's only human to have some controversial view that others disagree with. However, when history was first being written down, this type of historical figure bias would completely write away the controversies of a "hero" and only focus on the ones of a "villain". It's important now that we be able to look past these inaccurate accounts of the heroes and villains, and see them for who they really are-people involved in things that would later on become significant.

To begin, we'll need a historical figure. Let's go with the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Nowadays, people know him as "Honest Abe" and the "Emancipator"; the leader of the US who won the Civil War and helped free the slaves and was martyred for it. He's on the $5 dollar bill and 1¢ coin, and most students learn of him as one of the greatest people of all time. Well, Abe was human, too-he had some viewpoints that would effectively rule him out of sainthood. For instance, if you researched into his background, you'd see that he never mentioned getting rid of slavery until his Presidential run; his stints in the Illinois senate and US House never brought up the American issue to history's knowledge. Even when he ran for office, it was the Republican Party, his ticket, who said their mission was to end slavery; when Lincoln was elected and the Confederacy formed, he stated that if he "could win the (Civil) war without freeing a single slave , (he) would do it." Already you can see that his sainthood seems to come from the fact that he authored the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing slaves in the Confederacy, not in the Union, which the Southerners didn't have to follow) and was assassinated by an actor who desperately wanted the South to rise again.
On the other spectrum, General Robert E. Lee was the leader of the Confederate forces; a man so despised by the Union that Arlington Cemetery was built in his front yard. But did you know he was Lincoln's first choice for Union commander? Lee turned him down and left because his home state, Virginia, entered the Confederacy, and he was loyal to home first. In fact, Washington and Lee University is even named after the man, and most historians acknowledge that he was one of the best military commanders of his time. Yet it's still taught that because he was an enemy that he was also a bad guy.

Can you see where this is going? Some historical figures end up having good and bad traits, but depending on which side is telling the story, either one or the other is fully shown. There were obviously good traits to Lincoln (morality) and bad traits to Lee (slave owner), but because the Union won, its only these traits that are taught in history class. Here are a few more examples of historical figures and what history sometimes fails to tell us.

• Genghis Khan: Interconnected Europe, the Middle East, and Asia while simultaneously diffusing culture.
• Henry Ford: Extremely racist and favored the Nazi Party; received medal from them for helping with German production in the 1930's.
• John F. Kennedy: Philanderer and stubborn; planned to make a so-called "Kennedy Dynasty" of Presidents with his brothers Bobby and Ted.
• Oliver Cromwell: Overthrew the King because he ruled an absolute monarchy; tried making English society more equal and just.
• King George III: He was only doing what seemed justifiable to do to revolting colonies; Britain was broke and taxes were raised to help fix the economy. The US does this today without revolt.
• Adolf Hitler: The only exception to this rule; was an all-around horrible person even though he was an okay painter.

Judging the actions of historical figures is necessary when choosing what to teach or discuss about them; were they heroes or villains at the time, but over time have switched? It's not as easy as choosing the good and going from there, because it leads to inaccuracies in historical fact, and could make an idol out of a devil or vice versa. Basically, it's not black and white-no one is inherently good or inherently bad (except Hitler). When learning about historical figures, try focusing on the whole picture rather than a part.

As singer Billy Joel serenaded, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints."

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Keeping Students Awake

It can be hard to stay awake in history class. Outside of other classes, as students's life can be hard to handle, and sleep may be on the lower echelon of importance. So, if you see a student beginning to nod off in class, there's an easy solution for you to keep them up and at 'em!

When people become sleepy, it may be due to a lack of sleep or a lack of sound, or both. Oftentimes it's very hard to pay attention and stay awake, so it's up to the teacher to do two things: Speak Louder and Keep the Student Awake. For the former, this is explained in the very first post on this blog; you can find it in the HF archives. For the latter, what I want you to do is just find the sleepy student, and keep them awake as much as possible; this can included asking them questions, forcing them to move around by coming up to the board to answer a question, or just downright embarrassing them in front of their peers. In all of these cases, the student will be forced awake enough that they won't nod off again (and for the last, they'll be too embarrassed to do so). If multiple students are going to sleep, I'd check your lesson plan to make sure it isn't droning, but you can kill two birds with one stone by pointing them all out to the class at the same time. Basically, you're the teacher; if they sleep, they're getting embarrassed. I guarantee that this'll work; I once nodded off in German, and after Frau Ross made me do 10 pushups in front of the class, I didn't fall asleep again! I also blushed really badly! So, go for it! RUIN THEIR LIVES TO TEACH THEM HISTORY!

(Don't actually ruin them, but make sure they're learning what they need to)

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Comparing Fact to Fiction

In history, you'll oftentimes find a reference to an event or ideal that may not be easy to recognize without context. For instance, the entirety of L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz has been argued to be a thinly veiled political farce, with Dorothy and even the Cowardly Lion being connected to early 20th century farmers and politician William Jennings Bryan, respectively. The best example of this, however, is Orson Welles' classic Animal Farm; a retelling of Russian Communism in the form of an English farm and revolutionary pigs. As a student of history, it's your job to try and figure out these connections, but for many it can be quite hard. How was I supposed to know that the one character represented the President? But you'll actually be surprised to find that it isn't very hard; you just need to use your brain and some prior knowledge. Without the latter, you'll be completely lost, so make sure you pay attention in class!

Let's say the following sentence was written in 1930 in the US: "Martin watched as the clown walked down the dusty street, showing folks all of his shiny buttons and fancy wares. His stomach growled as he smelled the scent of the clown's strawberry rhubarb pie; he licked his lips as the clown munched on a savory piece. The people reached out for the clown, but when the former saw that their pockets were bare, became disturbed and continued on down the road. As he went out of sight, Martin began to wonder what a clown like that was doing in Kansas City."
Out of context, this sentence seems pretty strange; what IS a clown doing in KC? However, going off of the time period and location, it can be pretty simple to figure out who the "clown" represents. The year 1930 was near the beginning of both the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, and the US at the time looked for a scapegoat. They found one in President Herbert Hoover, who had made the stupid decision to continue on buying expensive food and hosting grand parties as most of America starved, to show the country that the government was "OK". Naturally, people didn't take this well, and Hoover was kicked out by FDR in 1933. With this info, you can begin to connect the clown to Hoover, and his "shiny buttons and fancy wares" as his decisions to show level-headedness. The people not receiving any of the clown's wares showed how the Americans at the time felt betrayed and mocked by Hoover's actions, and even calling him a "clown" relays the public opinion of the Iowan President. The location helps connect the sentence to the Dust Bowl, and now it can be easy to see that this story is some form of political statement about the US at the time.

By using context, it can be easy to find a story's hidden meaning; but for some, it can be extremely hard. If you end up having trouble with connecting fact to fiction, use the Internet or a textbook to help you out. They exist for a reason!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Lesson Idea: The WWI Game

In history, the Great War was hardly the "war to end all wars" as President Wilson so eloquently put it. It set into motion an even deadlier conflict 30 years after the signing of the treaty and would forever alter the makeup of Europe and the Middle East. However, today it has become some sort of "forgotten war"; basically, Hollywood and other medias have decided that it isn't as exciting as Vietnam or WWII, so it stays out of most movies or TV shows. When I visited DC 4 years ago, the memorial to its veterans (who have all since passed away) was in complete shambles, and completely obscured by the rest of the mall. So, how can we get history students to remember the First World War? Why, make it into a game, of course!

While you may think this is similar to the Lesson Idea "Revolutionary War Game", you'd be wrong. That game was aimed more at elementary students and even middle schoolers, who could still be expected to play large games to learn history. No, the WWI Game is more of a lesson for high schoolers, especially those in AP World/US History, who could better connect the historical references to their real-world counterparts AND be expected to make crucial strategies. Also, no teachers will be involved in this game; it will be completely student lead.

First, you'll need the students to form 6 groups; these will represent the six countries on the continent "Neillyland" (named after my AP World teacher); an island somewhere in Europe. You can draw the map of this continent based on the following descriptions. They are as follows:

Penland-The biggest country on the map. They have two rivers across their borders, the Makeshift and the Southern Rivers; they are in a dispute over the mouth of the latter with a country named York (draw York's border around this mouth). Recently, a smaller country named Bakhan declared independence and now occupies the northeastern corner of Penland. They have the biggest army, a fair sized navy, and are relatively wealthy; they are also allied with Morovia. They represent the Kingdom of Germany.
Bakhan-A country formed off the corner of Penland. As a newer country, they are the poorest, but have a good navy and a fair army. They are allied with Sovetan, and have a bitter rivalry with Penland. They represent Serbia, Poland, and other "new countries" of WWI.
Morovia- The only landlocked country. Due to this, they have no navy, but a fairly wealthy with a fair army. Their alliance with Penland has been strained, but they continue to be partnered with them due to fear of retribution. They are desperately competing with York and Mercia for a trade post in Asia, and have bitter rivalries with them over river access. They represent the Austria-Hungarian Empire.
Sovetan/Russola- The second largest country, located directly south of Penland. They own over half of the southern coastline and control access to the Southern River; they have been sought out for alliances by York, Mercia, and Morovia for this access. They have the fair Navy, but the poorest army, and are also very poor in wealth. Due to this, many civilians are beginning to become restless and call for revolution. They have allied with Bakhan to keep Penland from denying them trading rights. They represent the Tsardom of Russia.
York-The country west of Sovetan and controller of the Eastern coast. They have owned the mouth of the Makeshift River for years, but recently Penland has decided that they want it, leading to conflict. Their alliance with Mercia is to keep Morovia and Penland away from the coast and river, but they have bickered over access to Asia. They have a good navy, poor army, and are generally wealthy. They represent France.
Mercia-The country located above York. At this point, you should know their problems with York, Morovia, and Penland. The have the largest and best Navy, a good army, and are the richest country. The represent the United Kingdom.

You're probably wondering why I kept mentioning armies, navies, and wealth. Well, the point of this game is for these countries to try and stay at peace no matter what is thrown on the board. It's basically an experiment to see if the students will be able to "change history" and avoid war unlike what actually happened in WWI. But, if a country calls on another to live up to their alliance, IT MUST BE LIVED UP TO. Students can ally with more than just the pre-required countries, and break some off, but when your friends need help, you must help them; only in between turns can alliances be made/broken. There will be several events that occur in-game for the students to decide over. These are the main ones:

• Penland, under the cover of night, mobilizes troops to enter Bakhan. They claim it is only an exercize, but Bakhan officials state they are trying to take over the capital city. A rebel group in Bakhan has also killed Penland's ambassador, inciting violence within the country. Sovetan reports that Penlandian troops are heading towards their northern borders. All six countries must make press releases to decide on how to act to these events.
• (If the countries remain at peace in turn 1) Morovia has made the decision to allow troops into their borders to "train" (if they had broken off with Penland before this turn, say it has been forced). In the meantime, fighting has broken out on the mouth of the Makeshift River, and York calls on their allies for help. Countries once again make decisions and create press releases on their actions.
• (If countries remain at peace in turn 2) Revolution! The government of Sovetan has been overthrown, and a socialist one has been put in its place. Renamed Russola, they withdraw their alliances from Bakhan and other countries and become neutral. Penland decides to increase troop presence in Bakhan, and officials report that the capital city has been taken. Repeat steps from turns 1-2.

If all of the countries still have all remained at peace by this turn, the game is found in a draw. However, this shouldn't be possible; by at least Turn 2 the countries should declare war on each other and mobilize their secret alliances to aid them. From what I've found, all of the countries will turn on Penland, and the game will be over quickly. But the students should now understand how hard it was for Europe to even try avoiding war in the early 20th century; it was nearly impossible due to the relationships set up in that time. You can use this outcome to also teach how WWI was remembered as the Great War; it truly was the largest war in the world at the time. It should be remembered as the beginning of the modern era; hopefully, this game will help your students get there.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep