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

Quick Tips: Cramming for Tests

It's Sunday night, and you have a history test in the morning. You're freaking out because you can't tell Mohandas Gandhi from Indira Gandhi, and you didn't study. You consider cramming for the test, but you're not sure. What should you do? Well, surprisingly, cramming for a test can actually be beneficial to some. Usually, a teacher will give you a test study guide; if they don't, then you better start reading! If you do, though, just follow the outlines they give you to help yourself better prepare. Why do I say this? I've been in this situation before, and what I have found is that, more often or not, teachers want you to pass because it will make them look better. Therefore, only 2-3 questions will be outside of what you read on the study guide; a 27/30 is better than a 0/30. Using resources like your textbook or Google, you can find the answers to these historical questions and try as hard as you can to learn them all before the bell rings. If all else fails, ask another person in your class for help. If they studied or got the study answers, they can help you out a lot!

But before you start deciding that you should cram for all of your tests, DON'T. I only put these Quick Tips on Historical Friction for those who need more help in history class. If you had time to study and the materials, yet didn't do anything, it's on you that you failed, not me. This is only in situations when you weren't completely sure of yourself on a subject or ran out of time trying to prepare for it (don't stay up all night studying; you need rest!). If you cram for all your tests and get As, great; you obviously figured out how to retain a lot of info in one night. But if you keep putting off studying for a history test until it's too late, then you chose the wrong class to try and cram for.
Basically, be a good student. if you have to use Quick Tips, do; if you don't, don't.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

The Importance of Preservation

49 years ago, two football teams faced off in one of the first of many worldwide sporting events that would captivate a nation and transform broadcasting forever. As the NFL's Green Bay Packers, led by Bart Starr, hoisted coach Vince Lombardi above their heads after a rousing win against the AFL's Kansas City Chiefs 35-10 in Super Bowl I, CBS broadcast it all into American homes. However, as the hype for Super Bowl 50 continues to rise, the very first has never been re-broadcast on network television. All that survives in good quality from this day in 1967 are action pictures and off-angle shots made for instant replays. Only one partial recording still exists, though it is missing much of the third quarter, and is absent of any pre-/post-game content or halftime show; CBS doesn't even own this copy, as it was a home record. In the terms of history, Super Bowl I is technically "lost to the ages"; a horrible example of treatment of historically important items.

As a history student, you may not think much of preservation of history. You're just here to learn about history; beyond that, you don't give a rat's ass about where the Magna Carta is or if the Declaration is safe from the hands of Nic Cage. But what is the worth of historical accounts if there isn't any evidence of it in existence? Would you have believed that Abraham Lincoln was shot in a theater if the site was now an apartment complex? Who honors the WWI veterans as their monument is claimed by DC's natural swamp environment? Could we say without a doubt that David Bowie was a great singer if, 100 years from now, his songs were only a memory? The preservation of history-even Super Bowl broadcasts and "Space Oddity"-are the whole reason that history is even here in the first place. Learning the importance of preserving it should be a big part of learning it in the first place. So, here's a few situations in which you can decide if history was preserved.

• It's 1975. You work at the BBC in London. Your supervisor calls and says that due to limited storage, you have to destroy some of the films in the vaults to make space. Among these films are episodes of the TV show Doctor Who and some old silent pictures from the early 20th century. What do you do?

This one should be easy, right? While Doctor Who had only been around for a decade in the 70s, the silent films are a large piece of history that you'd have a hand in destroying. The correct thing to do here is to try and preserve these pieces.

Except, that's not what happened. The BBC and other broadcasting companies did this a lot in their history, oftentimes destroying priceless/final copies of silent movies. The aforementioned Doctor Who is missing well over 100 episodes from the 60s due to this, and this is one of the reasons Super Bowl I is so hard to find. Back then, companies didn't think anything would want to be seen more than once, so nothing was ever saved; it was only with the advent of recording devices that this practice was halted. Had historical significance rather than money saving been brought into account, this wouldn't have happened.

• It's 1982. The movie E.T had come out earlier in the year, and you had loved it. For Christmas, your parents have given you an Atari 2600 video game console and the video game version of the film. However, you discover the game is completely horrible, and contemplate whether you should throw it out. What would you do?

In this situation, it can be hard to see the worthiness of preservation for a video game. Especially one so horrible, that the creators buried hundreds of copies in the California desert. But given the time period, the money used to buy that game would've been a lot for parents to afford; you'd be murdered if you threw it away. Besides, due to the games rarity in 34 years, you could sell it for over $100,000.

• It's 2016. As you scavenge around in your late grandfather's attic, you discover a rusty bayonet. It doesn't look like it's worth a lot, but it has to be really old. What would you do?

I'll leave this one up to interpretation. It's really your own choice when deciding to preserve or get rid of your own history, but who am I to make that choice for you?

Luckily, people are starting to catch on to the preservation ideology. CBS and the NFL sell copies of Super Bowls II-XLIX on DVD/Blu Ray (50 later this year), Doctor Who is now preserved on the Internet, and copies of E.T are even in the Smithsonian Institute. Ironically, social media like Facebook and Twitter are some of the best preservers of history of all time; the Internet is forever, after all. As more and more institutes begin to transfer hundreds of ancient manuscripts to PDF files, it's important to continue preaching this idea of preserving our past. If what's seen is to be believed, then it is the most important part of any history class. The next time you meet a Presidential candidate or see something once in a lifetime, take a few pictures. That's something the whole world can enjoy in the future.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Lesson Idea: Yellow Journalism Activity

In the Progressive Era of the United States, as well as other advanced countries, journalists would often scrounge for stories in some of the most inane things. A boat sinking would become a systematized attack on the country (this actually led to the Spanish-American War), a small private occurrence became a national scandal, and almost everyone's lives were judged by the paper. This was called "yellow journalism", or sensationalism, and newspaper magnates like William Randolph Hearst would use it excessively to sell more papers; he once famously said to a news artist in Cuba during the S-A War, "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war." Today, you could successfully argue that news programs like Fox News and papers like the Daily Mail still force this yellow journalism into everyone's faces; take, for example, any story revolving around President Obama on Fox News as an example of this. In order for your students to see how yellow journalism shaped the way Americans looked at things in the early 1900s, this activity will help them make their very own sensational pieces out of small stories.

To begin, you'll need to either find or create outlines for news stories that simply aren't that newsworthy, or are newsworthy but can be incorrectly construed. This can range from fairly simple to fairly hard, so you may want to keep it to things like these:

• A man and his wife have separated after the former won the lottery.
• The state of Mississippi has placed the Ten Commandments on the wall of the Capitol.
• The President claims in a speech that gun rights "are too lenient".
• A boat has sunk off of the coast of North Korea.
• A dog has been elected mayor of a rural Oregon town.

In order for the students to correctly participate in this activity, they need to understand how yellow journalism worked. It wasn't based on fact at all; it was a tactic used by newspaper companies to sell more of their products to unwitting buyers. In the process, misinformation would often spread and actual problems could result, but due to the government not having say over what the press printed due to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, they would continue to be spread. Even such things as a marriage or a birth were taken out of context and written to the effect that if you looked at only the sensational piece, it would be a scandal or worse. After giving them their news pieces, tell the students they must now create a headline which would not only completely take a story out of context, but could lead to some real-life issues if it ran in tomorrow's newspaper; they must be able to explain these issues to the class. Using the previous examples, we get:

• LOCAL PREACHER LEAVES WIFE FOR MONEY; MISTRESS TELLS ALL!
• MISSISSIPPI GOING AGAINST CONSTITUTION, ALLOWING RELIGION TO RULE!
• PRESIDENT PLANNING ON REPEALING 2ND AMENDMENT!
• NORTH KOREA HAS DECLARED WAR! HAS SUNK US BOAT; PRESIDENT FURIOUS!
• OREGON TOWN DECLINING INTO ANARCHY, ELECTS DOG AS MAYOR

As you can see, these headlines couldn't be more further from the truth. The first one could've been due to other causes, but the paper claims to have testimony from a "mistress", making nothing into a scandal. The second, third, and fourth examples are all taken completely out of context and paint the events in the light of the paper's opinion; this can and has led to many problems in foreign affairs/public affairs. The last one is an example of how the completely opposite side of a news story can be made from absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, the students should understand how this sensationalism is completely hurtful to society, and if they can connect these headlines to yellow publications like the National Enquirer and Globe magazines, then they fully understand how it all works.

Besides that, they got to learn about awful reporting in a way that's fun! As a funny little rule, don't censor whatever they write (as if you were the government), and see how many vulgar examples your students can come up with!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep