Thursday, September 18, 2008

Blog # 2: Was the new world superior to the old world?


Now that we've spent time exploring the initial motives and consequences of European colonization of the Americas, I'd like to hear your position on one of this week's essential questions: Was the New World superior to the Old World? Please refer to class materials and/or any outside research you complete for your first project as evidence to support your answer. 

Be sure to respond to one other blogger after you have posted your own thoughtful response. 

Due Monday, September 22

25 comments:

Dana Pistilli said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dana Pistilli said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dana Pistilli said...

This question is relatively difficult to consider of being answered. This is because everyone has their own opinions on how they feel; however, this answer could be tracked down by being true with facts. Not only do people have their own opinions, but the Old World and the New world were two different places as well as times. In the Old World, new ideas and difficulties seemed to be popping up randomly throughout each century. For example Europe was much more advanced obviously by their technology, as well their population and the size of the society. The politics system was also set up differently from the New World. Europe had monarchs with a social class in which they would rule over citizens for years on end, it seemed. North America was a democracy country with the Native Americans as their own leaders. In this way, they have their own distinct social class. The difference between the Native Americans and Europe was that the monarchs believed in nepotism and chose from how wealthy, or high on the system, a person was. Nepotism is a belief in which favoritism is shown towards a certain family or family member, usually towards a male. The Native Americans, on the other hand, chose certain tribes to rule over the people.

The New World was much different. In a way that it was different is that the technologies and ideas were spread out much more. The people, such as the Native Americans, were spread out and they had their own land. The tribes weren’t all in one specific area, but now all throughout the world. Overall, the new world created a renaissance for the people living in North America. This was so that the “old” ways would be stopped and changed into the ideas of trade and culture. It was more of a sophisticated and well-developed place.

Although it seems as if the New World should be better and brighter than the Old World, but oddly, it’s not. The New World still had people suffering from deaths, poverty, starvation, violence, and slaughtering. In order for our world to become a better and safer place, all of these problems would have to be fixed. Organizations would have to be developed to prevent from these events from happening.

Robert Keller said...

There is no single answer to this question. The New World and the Old World had their advantages and downfalls. The government in the Old World was a monarchy. Citizens were under complete control of the monarch. Citizens were severely punished if they disobeyed the monarch. The monarch chose the official religion of their country. All citizens were required to practice the official religion of their country. There was a rigid social class structure in the Old World. The majorities of people in the Old World were impoverished and were virtually powerless. The upper class made up about three percent of the Old World's population, were close to their monarch, and had authority over the lower social classes. If you were in the lower class, you lived in the lower class for your entire life. The future generations of your family would continue belong to the lower class. Despite the class system, people in the Old World shared a similar ethnical background.
The New World gave the poor an opportunity for a better life and helped the upper class make a profit. A poor person could get land in America and start a new life for his family. The rigid class system present in the Old World was not present in the New World. Religious freedom was offered in the New World, except in the early days of Massachusetts. People could not be persecuted for religious reasons. The New World had a viceroy government. The viceroy would give the monarch a report on how the colony was doing a few times a year. Other than that, people in the New World were basically left to live at their own risk. People in the New World were constantly fighting with Native Americans. The Native Americans had customs and cultures that were completely different than those of the new settlers.
The Old World offered fewer opportunities than the New World. However, they shared common problems. Poverty, starvation, and conflict greatly influenced life in both Worlds. People in the Old World were ranked by an unfair class system. In the New World every man was considered equal. However to live in the New World, people would have to defend themselves from the Native Americans. While it would be very easy to say life in the New World was better than life in the Old World, you must think about what both worlds had in common.

I agree with Dana on the fact that there is no right or wrong answer to the question. Both the Old World and the New World had to deal with problems such as poverty, violence, and disease. Both worlds had their own distinct way of life. People in the New World risked attacks from Native Americans so they could own property and have religious freedom. People in the Old World risked persecution by their government. There is no right or wrong answer because both worlds had their downfalls.

khadijat O. said...

Neither, The New World or Old World was superior to the other for the fact that they did not exceedingly progress in tolerance. First off, During the New World, the Indians suffered a harsh Genocide. The Old World for the Indians exercised tolerance and patience within the Indian nations. When the European settlers came, the Indians lost land and useful resources. They were killed in a large sum and forced to do harsh labor. Also, indentured servants were use, later on. This became a help to the unfortunate living in Europe. Yet, the negatives overshadow the positives, for the fact that not only were the Europeans forcefully killing the Indians; they were also doing it with diseases such as Smallpox and Typhus. In the Old World in Europe people lived in monarchs were not allowed to practice their own religion. They were prosecuted if they did not follow Catholicism. Most infamous, Europe had a caste system. Most of the people were either in dept or inhumanly poor. Only free, land owning, and native-born men could be citizens entitled to the full protection of the law in a city-state. The population was divided into nobility, clergy, and the commoners. In some regions, the commoners were divided into burghers, peasants or serfs. The caste system was a symbol of inequality. In the New World there were still a lot of unequal social relations, exploitation, enslavement and infrastructures happening; yet, medical advances, new institutions, technological advancements were made. The first business to bloom in the New World was the Virginia Company. Once the Europeans came to the New World, certain cultural groups were still acquiring problems, like the Quakers and Puritans. In The New World, the colonies were not properly taken care of by the European countries. At one point, the settlers were dying from starvation.

The New World can be looked upon as better, but only in the case of the Europeans. The Native Indians were still at constant war with the settlers.

Though the Old World and New World shared the same level of superior ness, I feel that the New World held greater potential to make a positive impact on how humans are suppose to behave.

khadijat O. said...

In response to Dana's comment: The Natives were spread out probally by force from the European settlers.They were in different locations as a tactic by the Europeaners. They didnt really want the Indians to form alliances or overpower them.
This is Khadijah.

katie said...

The new world was not superior to the old world in anyway. The reason I feel that the new world was not superior or even equal to the old world was because of the savage way in which the colonist had behaved once the came to the America's. I don't believe that the colonist were complete savages of their own choice but because they had been dropped off in the middle of no were with barely any means of survival. The new world was also less superior to the Old world because they had gone to cannibalism, and desperate measures in order to survive. I also believe that the new world was less superior then the old world because the colonist came to the Americas to find gold, and slaves meaning they had not been fully prepared to take on the starvation, disease, and death that would take place when they came to the Americas. When colonist came to America there was regaler peasants and then wealthy nobles, so the peasants had to do all the work while the nobles just sat and watched the peasants struggle. This shows that the new world was less superior because in order for the colonies to work, all of the people would have to work together so that farming, harvesting, building shelters, and fishing could be completed and people did not have to starve. I believe strongly that the old world was much more superior to the new world. I disagree with Dana I feel that even though the old world had similar problems to he new world, the new world was still less superior to the old world because of the colonist lack of ability to change the terrors happening on their land.

Katie McSherry
AP US

laurelhaim said...

Although the old world and new world were similar I have to say that the new world was superior.
The old world was making new advancements n farming and trade. Within the new world the colonists were able to grow new crops, such as tobacco, which became a major source of income.
The new world allowed territorial expansion and religious freedom. Political changes were also made.
Many colonist groups had started their own democratic nations under treaties. The Mayflower Compact was the first colonial agreement that formed a government by the consent of the governed. In the old world it was a strict monarchy that made the peoples decisions.
Although the settlers were faced with the problem of war and revolts with the Indians the advancements still were greater in the new world.
Religious groups like the Quakers were formed. The Puritan made much advancement such as education. They required that town’s containing certain amount families had different types of schools.
Was because of the savage way in which the colonist had behaved once the came to the America's. Katie, although they have changed their behavior, when the settlers came to America the advancements in farming and trade could not be compared. New crops were being harvested and the trade with the Indians was excellent.
I believe the new world was superior to the old world solely because the many advancements made by the settlers. Although they resulted in extreme measures to survive they had started to bring the world to be what it is like today.

Lightspeed2552 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lightspeed2552 said...

The times of the Old World and the New World were two completely different eras in our nation's history. The New World was run by Indians while the Old World was run by hierarchies. Thousands of years ago, Indians migrated across Beringia and reached the Americas. They would be settled in these new lands for many, many years to come. In the Old World, countries were run by Kings and Queens with a great imbalance in power. After the settlement of the Indians in the Americas and the progress of the countries in Europe, a question arose: “Which is superior, the Indians’ New World or the hierarchal Old World?”

During the time of the New World, Indian civilizations stretched from Canada all the way down to Chile. This long stretch of civilizations led to a well-organized trade system, and the Indians had a wide variety of things to sell, such as weapons and food. Indians had developed weapons such as spears and cutting stones but many more weapons used for long range hunting. As civilizations in Europe were experiencing an Agricultural Revolution, so were the Indians. These natives grew many crops, but the best crops that they had were their maize (corn) crops, with which they had the highest quantity. Though times were not always the best. When the Indians of the New World started farming civilizations, some worried about the welfare of their crops because their civilizations greatly depended on them. Soon enough, there was quarreling over how communities should be run and an imbalance in power (between genders, to be more specific). Although the people of the New World had their disagreements and troubles, the imbalance in power was minor and nowhere near as bad as the imbalance in power that could only be found in hierarchies, such as England and Spain. Other than farming, Indians found fishing beneficial for getting food. Genders didn’t matter much in Indian societies because everyone was treated equally. Women and men were designated to certain jobs. In general, men were hunters and women helped run the communities. When it came to marriage, women and men both had an equal say in whom they wanted to marry. Women were respected in communities and were given equal rights, which was unfamiliar to European societies where men were believed to be superior to women. One right that was given to native females was the right to a divorce. The woman would put all the husbands belongings outside their tent/hut, and the husband would respectively accept it a live on with his life in the community.

During the time of the Old World, everything was advanced as they were in the New World, except for the way the societies were run. Instead of focusing on peace and equality amongst their people, explorers only wanted gold, slaves, or to spread their territory. Some men were more powerful than others, and women were inferior to the men of society. This seemed like a step back from progress. The only way that people of the Old World were more advanced than people of the Old World was in the category of weaponry and warfare, which I believe is less important than the category of peace and equality. The New World was better than the Old World.

To laurel’s response: I concur with laurel’s response that the New World was superior to the Old World because of the many advancements in government and freedoms, both in the settlers’ civilization and the Indians’ civilization.

- Michael Appelgate

brianne hannafey said...

The question is the New World superior to the Old World is an opinion question, so everyone will have different ideas. Back in the 1600’s the Old World was superior to the New World because they had better lives. In the New World the settlers had to share their land with the Indians where as in the Old World there were no settlers that had to fight each other. In New England there was much conflict with the American Indians from fighting over land to who was in charge. In Old England there was a King who everyone settling or living there for ever followed the rule of. Coming to the New World was totally different. There was no one in charge of the whole region, so this would cause a fight for superiority. In the notes we took the other day from the power point in class and from the movie The New World we saw that the settlers built a fort around their colony for protection. The people back in the Old World didn’t have to build forts around their colonies, because they all lived as one. Also in the movie The New World they show how much of the products brought here were spoiled by the time they reached America, which cause problems because they didn’t have any of those products in the New World. There was not trade and not a lot of resources in the New World, where as in the Old World everything was already set up and everyone steeled in.
I agree with Dana how the New World should have been better; although, it was not. Many people were dying and getting sick. The New World sounded a lot better than it ended up being. Things aren’t always what they seem.

Vince said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vince said...

The question is of total opinion, not fact, so the fair n square way to conclude whether the New or Old World were superior to each other would be to list pros and cons about each other until a clear, decisive victor is chosen. I am in total agreement with Dana and Rob Keller, because instead of being absolute, and single minded, they both look at different perspectives, and point of views, which is something I consider extremely important for answering such questions. Right off the top of my head, I must question the question Ms. Francis imposed on us. I ask myself, in which ways were the New and Old Worlds Superior? What attributes concur with the question, as well as a time period?
The general idea of the question seems clear enough for a debate with pros and cons, so to start off, the main thing that decides a countries superiority to another is: power. Obviously, the Old World was more powerful because it was way more developed, and had a strong economic backbone, unlike the New World which just began developing and creating any sort of power. (Score one for Old World) the second important factor in superiority is: influence on surroundings. The New World barely began to be developed, let alone influence other places. The Old World, however, had plenty of influence to go around, which spread far and wide, continent to continent. (Score two for Old World) The third factor deciding superiority is: likelihood of wanting to live in a certain country. Lets face it, a country with a population of twenty million will certainly be stronger, and more well developed then a country with a couple hundred thousand civilians, which leads to the favor of the Old World. Although, the New World was a sudden inspiration to many when they heard of such an exaggerated land, and the New World did begin the development of having free religion, free market, and a democratic government, which hints to free government. Even though the New World barely had any sort of population, the wanting to become a citizen there grew larger then any other country. This attribute deserves more study, but for now I leave it alone and give a point to each option. (Score three for Old World/Score one for New World.) Next decision, number four, to make is: security and health. The Old World has both of these steps cleared, as a large military and militia are definitely present in these empires. But in the New World, military is nowhere to be found, and health is on the negative side. (Score four for Old World/Score one for New World) Fifth order of business is: location. The Old World was mostly a few empires fighting for tiny spaces of land in Europe, a place nobody want to live in. Rather, traveling to the New World, in an exciting area free of warfare and gunpowder everywhere. Although, the European explorers did fight with the Indians, it compared to nothing against the tensions always happening in Europe. (Score four for Old World/ Score two for New World) Sixth common sense to choice superiority is: Landscape. Farms and mines in the Old World lead to fights and greed for petty riches. Even though much of Europe is quite fertile, the New World has much more to offer, as Columbus exaggerates. But land in control of power hungry lords and wealthy owners become land not worth fighting for. Since the Old World has no free land, the New World does, with vast ranges of grasslands, and ever vaster areas of plains and hills. The production in the Old World has become brittle and stand-still, but such fertile lands in the New World open up new hopes. (Score four for New World/ Score three for Old World) The final factor in determining superiority over the New and Old World is: size. Overall, the United States are way larger then the entire continent of Europe. Looking at the Americas, though, during the 1600's one can conclude that the European explorers did not have full essential use of this land until many centuries later. Europe, however had land it has been using for many millennia, and the size of land Europe has compared to the amount of land the European settlers were able to use for the first couple of centuries is way smaller, which gives the old World the upper hand. (Score five for Old World/Score three for New World) And so, in a very overall and decisive battle against superiority, it is quite clear that the Old World won the battle. However, in the Americas future, such results will change, giving the Americas the winning score, but for now I am discussing the early days. At first look, I thought that the New World was more superior, hands down, but after taking apart the facts and places the pieces of the puzzle together, it appears that the Old World is superior. Still, this test needs more to be studied up on. A close race, but Old World won 3-5 pros and cons. So, in conclusion, the Old World was superior to the New World because of the many facts that face the two options, which lead in favor of the Old World.

Simit Christian said...

European nations faced overpopulation, severe economic competition, and a lack of new enterprises which would reduce inflation and poverty. This crisis led to colonization of the Americas, which was fueled by the desire to obtain wealth from the newly discovered land. However, the wealth pursuit of the Europeans led to the destruction of the well established Native tribes, eventually leading to their elimination from the Americas. From a Native’s point of view the Old World was definitely superior; contradictorily, from a colonist’s view the New World was. Due to the benefits both the New World and the Old offered to the Europeans and Natives respectively, the superiority of either world remains a controversial.

“Our country was never in that want that now it is, and more of money than corn, for there are many thousands in these parts who have sold all they have even to their bed straw and cannot get work to earn any money” claimed William Pelham, declaring the need for economic opportunities for the lower class English groups (Kennedy and Bailey, 29). For people like Pelham, and other colonists struggling in their own countries, the New World was a haven with a potential to transform into a new country, with an abundance of economic choices. From a colonist’s perspective the New World seemed to be the appropriate result of European domination over others. Juan Gines de Sepulveda promoted this thinking when stating “The Spanish have a perfect right to rule these barbarians of the New world and the adjacent lands, who in prudence, skill, virtues, and humanity are as inferior to the Spanish as children to adults…for there exists between the two as great a difference as between…apes and men,” (Kennedy and Bailey, 3). De Sepulveda, along with European monarchies had accepted the notion that they were naturally superior, and deserved to create new homes for themselves in the already inhabited Americas.

On the other hand, the Indians obviously disliked European efforts to territorialize their domain, favoring the Old World. “there are important kingdoms, large numbers of people who settled lives in a society, great cities, kings, judges and laws” said Bartolome de Las Casas, emphasizing the achievements of the Indians and progress expected from them. De Las Casas, understood observed the economically, socially, and politically balanced societies that the Natives possessed, and was willing to defend them against his fellow Spaniards. The Natives had already inhabited the Americas prior to the arrival of the explorers, and wished to remain unharmed from the foreigners arriving at their land.

Despite the positive aspects of the New World, the Old World appears somewhat meliorated; the Old World, unlike the New did not consist of genocides, warfare, or epidemics. Regardless the creation of “America” which was guided by the efforts of the colonists, the destruction of Indians appears to overshadow the progress of the colonies.

Regardless the progress Laurel Haim mentions about the New World, she seems to neglect the atrocious efforts, particularly treatment of the Indians, which contributed to the progress of the colonies. Similarly, 90’s kid contradicts herself, stating: “Neither, The New World or Old World was superior to the other for the fact that they did not exceedingly progress in tolerance,” and later claiming : “The Old World for the Indians exercised tolerance and patience within the Indian nations,”.

PeAcHyRoC92 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PeAcHyRoC92 said...

The New World was both superior and non-superior to the Old World because it offered certain values and possessions that the Old World did not have. Although, the New World benefited settlers in many aspects, the Old World too provided much for the colonists. When many of the European countries set out for America, they left in hopes of finding new property and great wealth. From the English, to the French and Dutch, many believed exploring the American land would bring success. However, as many arrived to the New World, they encountered many difficulties that left unsatisfying results. Still settlers continued with their search for profitable gain and economic increase.
In 1607 when the Spanish arrived in New Mexico, they treasured the idea of finding valuable items such as gold and other profitable metals. The New World opened up new opportunities that the Spanish could not resist, so when the Pueblo Indians came into contact with the Spanish problems arose. The Spanish believed that were of higher status than the Indians were, and quickly took advantage of the natives. Forcing the Pueblo Indians to labor under Spanish authority, the Pueblo were obligatory to leave their customs and traditions behind to follow those of the Spanish. Viewing the Indians as animals rather than humans, the Spanish prized the idea that they could use the natives for their work, thus allowing bloodshed and war to extend throughout the land. Although the Spanish received much land in New Mexico, the New World also damaged the settlers. Drought, famine, and the lost of many settlers due to disease, left Spanish colonies in unhealthy conditions. Various Indian tribes also went against the Spanish and took revenge, because they felt threatened by the barbaric actions of the settlers. The Spanish arrival in America left both a positive and negative outcome, thus showing how the New World was not completely superior to the Old one.
Similar to the Spanish, the French colonists arrived in America expecting great gain. As the French settled in areas by the St. Lawrence River, they planned ways in which they could trade. Advancing in their control in the fur trade was a positive outcome the French as they also befriended the natives. Making alliances with the Indians, allowed the French to learn the ways of life and survival in the New World. During the warm seasons, it was easier for the French settlers to get around in the new land, but once the cold weather hit, many of the French returned to the Old World, which provided the necessities needed.
The Dutch are an example of a colony that benefited much from New World as they used the crop rotation method to increase their produce in agriculture. Establishing the first stock exchange in Amsterdam and investing in banking, the Dutch received much on their behalf in the New World. Naval, military, and commercial power left an advantage for the Dutch as they drastically increase economically.
Jamestown, the first permanent settlement in America for the English became an area in which many of the English settlers took as an advantage in the New World. The Virginia Company sent ships to Jamestown in hopes of gaining more land and finding treasures in gold. Establishing a colony in the New World was the main priority of the English, and they made sure that no Indian or savage was going to stand in their way. Upon the English arrival to the New World, they considered the Indians uncivilized, barbaric creatures, and forcefully took over their land. The Powhatan Chief tried to befriend the settlers for their goods, but the English took advantage of the Indians, and conflict arose in the land. Not only did the English have war with the Indians, but they didn’t find the values of gold that they so richly desired. Life in the Old World was an advantage because the English settlers had an abundance food, decent places to live, and water. In the New World, they were barely making it out alive due to lack of survival knowledge.
Agreeing with Laurel Haim, the New World did offer much for the settlers as tobacco plantations, and other crops benefited the colonists. However, the sufferings that the settlers faced in the New World, led the Old World to be of some advantage. Starvation and disease resulted in the lives of many settlers. In the Old World, there were more food supplies and advanced civilization. Still, the New World offered a new beginning for the lives of many colonists as the European countries tried to develop a superior land.

BY:Racquel Wood

Miss. Francis said...

Dana - G: Interesting comparisons. I'd like to see more specific references to conditions in both regions, but this is well argued overall.

Robert - E-: Insightful with a powerful use of evidence on the rigidity of social structure that made life unbearable for many in the famed "Old World" .

Kadijat - E-: Solid assessments of the downfalls of both cultures and how these brought out the worst in one another on some level... was war inevitable?

Katie- G:

Aleksandra said...

Contrary to the opinion of many of the other students, I believe the Old World should be acknowledged as superior.

Just as Rob said, there were advantages and disadvantages to both worlds; therefore, I won't deny that the New World (America) deserves some applause. For one thing, a deeper connection was formed between cultures than ever before in European history. Natives and Europeans interacted in a manner that changed the course of both cultures forever. This "meeting" of two different worlds was crucial in the development of a more understanding and complete society. Also, the European settlers of the New World practiced religions that altered greatly from Europe's controlling papacy. This led to the formation of a state separate from church, a necessary step to take in order to form a truly religiously free society. Furthermore, the New World was very successful in the production of varied agricultural goods, thanks to the Natives who had lived heir for centuries before. Tobacco, corn, sugar canes were some of the few crops that helped settlers thrive in the New World.

However, I believe it is undeniable the Old World was superior. For one thing, Europe was economically independent. It was many decades after the first colonies developed for the settlers to thrive on their own, without the support of Europe and its wealth. Even trading with Europe signified that the colonies of the New World needed their old continent for aid. Secondly, the Old World had developed weapons that were much greater than those produced and fought with in America. Only because of Europe was the New World able to replace their wooden spears with durable metals. It is also crucial to point out numerical calculations. Million more people lived in Europe than in the New World; therefore, the Old World remained (for many centuries) more powerful. Most importantly, had there been no Old World, there would be also no New World to write about and debate .

Can I say this in the form of a simpler analogy? There is a pencil. Several centuries later, that simple yet productive pencil changes into a pencil with an eraser. While the pencil with the eraser is awesome, it would never exist without the plain pencil itself. Therefore, it would be unfair to call the invention of the plain pencil inferior because, without it, the pencil with the eraser would be just an eraser. And who needs an eraser when there’s nothing to erase? (By the way, the Old World is the pencil and the New World is the pencil with eraser.) Perhaps this analogy isn’t much simpler.

rOebelLa said...

Rob, I agree totally. Being run by different governments it is hard to determine by fact which was more superior because they were both at different eras.

In my opinion, the new world was not more or less superior than the old world. Both benefited different groups of people at different times. Colonists came to the old world thinking they would find gold and slaves and they would return peacefully. They were sadly mistaken after being stuck in the old world and suffering from starvation and diseases. Many colonist lost their lives because of these things.
Although I believe one is not more superior than the other, I feel the new world could be considered more superior because of the major advancements that had taken place since the old world. Agriculture was a huge advancement from crop rotation to tobacco growth that was a huge part of trade and the economy. The new world also had a government unlike the old world was run by a monarchy which means the people make decisions. Although it is an advantage to have a say in laws, how could a country be civilized with their people as the government. Agreeing with Laurel, colonists could have benefited from the advancement of agriculture in the new world. Religious groups were also being formed. For example the Puritans wanted to purify and reform the English church. Immigration was also different. When people migrated to the new world they had to be allowed in by masters. Once allowed in these men became indentured servants which meant to repay a master for allowing them in they had to be a servant for the for 4-7 years. I suppose you can say I believe the new world was a tad bit more advanced than the old world.

-Rosa Carucci

Miss. Francis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miss. Francis said...

Alexsandra - E- Thoughtful and detailed but late (so you lose 5 points). The analogy worked, though it was basically as complicated as the original example.

Miss. Francis said...

Vincent - S+: You have excellent potential in this assignment as all the points are covered, but they're a bit disorganized and challenging to follow. Also, there was some factual inaccuracy - the settlers did NOT have democratic councils preceding the American Revolution. Also, because the post was late you lost half a letter grade.


Simit - E+: Fantastic work and choice of quotes. +.

Raquel - E+: Insightful comparison of several settlements.

Rosa - G-: Thoughtful and reflective of new understandings, but you were a little late which resulted in a point reduction.

Simit Christian said...

My response to Khadijat was inaccurate because I did not thoroughly read her statements, I apologize!

Lightspeed2552 said...

Where's my grade? :(

laurelhaim said...

my grade still isn't on here.