Ethnocentrics

When the British first set sail for Australia, they didn't know what they were going to find, and they were very ethnocentric about their culture. They instinctively thought that what ever they find would be inferior to them, and that would cause a lot of conflict. What they found didn't surprise them. They saw the different culture of the Aboriginals and because it was so different, treated it with disrespect. What the British saw was a few tribes, with uncivilised savages running about the place. They just didn't understand the different culture. As the British started investigating into the Aboriginals, and exploring more of Australia, they started to feel more and more superior to them, who, to the British, were nothing more than animals. The Aborigines began to feel like their land was being overrun and not treated with respect and because of the culture differences between the British and Aborigines, the British didn't know about the connection the natives had with the land. The ethnocentricity of the British led them to not bother about learning about the Aboriginal culture, and so they just plowed through the land. The Aborigines did not take kindly to this at all. War and rebellions broke out many times between the British and Aborigines, but the British always were victorious. Because of the ignorance the British had and their ethnosentricity, the British ignored the Aboriginals culture and ways of living and went deeper and deeper into the land, killing it when the Aborigines culture had so much to do with living in harmony with the land. This was the main cause for the conflicts that brought about the slaughter of so many people when the British came to Australia.

Julius Caesar duet acting.

The context of this passage is that Brutus and Cassius' relationship is falling apart. The war is going badly, and Brutus needed some more money for the war effort, but when Cassius sent it, Brutus never received it. Now Brutus is acusing Cassius of getting the money in a dishonest manner.
The significance of this passage is yet more characterization of Brutus as still desperate to find an honourable way out of the mess that he has got him and the conspirators in by doing it the 'honourable' way. Cassius has known all along that this would not work, so now it has come to the inevitable conflict between the two very different characters.
Act IV SCENE III. (lines 1-120) Brutus's tent.
Enter BRUTUS and CASSIUS.
CASSIUS
That you have wrong'd me doth appear in this:
You have condemn'd and noted Lucius Pella
For taking bribes here of the Sardians;
Wherein my letters, praying on his side,
Because I knew the man, were slighted off.
BRUTUS
You wronged yourself to write in such a case.
CASSIUS
In such a time as this it is not meet
That every nice offence should bear his comment.
BRUTUS
Let me tell you, Cassius, you yourself
Are much condemn'd to have an itching palm;
To sell and mart your offices for gold
To undeservers.
CASSIUS
I an itching palm!
You know that you are Brutus that speak this,
Or, by the gods, this speech were else your last.
BRUTUS
The name of Cassius honours this corruption,
And chastisement doth therefore hide his head.
CASSIUS
Chastisement!
BRUTUS
Remember March, the ides of March remember:
Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake?
What villain touch'd his body, that did stab,
And not for justice? What, shall one of us
That struck the foremost man of all this world
But for supporting robbers, shall we now
Contaminate our fingers with base bribes,
And sell the mighty space of our large honours
For so much trash as may be grasped thus?
I had rather be a dog, and bay the moon,
Than such a Roman.
CASSIUS
Brutus, bay not me;
I'll not endure it: you forget yourself,
To hedge me in; I am a soldier, I,
Older in practise, abler than yourself
To make conditions.
BRUTUS
Go to; you are not, Cassius.
CASSIUS
I am.
BRUTUS
I say you are not.
CASSIUS
Urge me no more, I shall forget myself;
Have mind upon your health, tempt me no further.
BRUTUS
Away, slight man!
CASSIUS
Is't possible?
BRUTUS
Hear me, for I will speak.
Must I give way and room to your rash choler?
Shall I be frighted when a madman stares?
CASSIUS
O ye gods, ye gods! must I endure all this?
BRUTUS
All this! ay, more: fret till your proud heart break;
Go show your slaves how choleric you are,
And make your bondmen tremble. Must I budge?
Must I observe you? must I stand and crouch
Under your testy humour? By the gods
You shall digest the venom of your spleen,
Though it do split you; for, from this day forth,
I'll use you for my mirth, yea, for my laughter,
When you are waspish.

My Learning Profile.

I was quite surprised at my learning profile. I suspected that I would be logic, but I didn't know that my letter meant that I was straight in the middle of logic and gestalt. Apparently I learn best by not having any external sensory stimulation, so it doesn't help if I listen to music while working. Also, I don't need to bounce ideas off another person, I can think internally. So I learn best by being in a quiet, calm environment. It is good if I have some quiet time alone, and I need to be able to sit where I can think quietly inside my head, and that I should maybe doodle or fiddle with something while listening/ working.
I need to have a balance of art, music, movement and inter/intrapersonal skills, with brain endeavors. Also, it is good to do activates that require both hands to get both parts of the brain working, such as drumming, piano, writing and drawing with the non-dominant hand.
Some strategies that would help me learn are, as I said, being able to fiddle with something (clay, doodles) in class. Massaging the Temporal Mandibular joint (upper jaw joint) will help with my communication. Also, being in a quiet, relaxed environment.
I would like my teachers to know that I learn better working alone, because I process my thoughts better internally, and that I cannot function well when I am stressed, and may have trouble communicating my ideas. Aside from that there is not much else to say, apart from the fact that I am really glad to have learned all this, because now I understand a bit more about my self.

Leonardo da Vinci, a true Renaissance man.

Leonardo da Vinci can be characterized as a Renaissance man through his ability to observe, his attention to detail and his imagination. Da Vinci was one of the few artists that looked at everything around him and question it. He always carried a notebook and drew whatever interesting things he saw. He examined everything closely, and tried to find answers within it. Not many people actually observed their surroundings, they saw, but did not observe. Da Vinci also paid very close attention to detail in the things that he studied, these are clear in his various drawings of anatomical accurate bodies and muscle forms. He noted everything he saw in the things he examined, and in cases like when he was disectiong bodies, even looked at how the insides worked. Da Vinci's observation skills and ability to notice detail helped his imagination hugely.
Leonardo's imagination lead to the creation and design of many of the ideas he had because he had observed every little detail in what had inspired him. The flying machine he had designed and the Vitruvian Man that he had drawn was clear evedence of this. His imagination helped him think of things that others could not, and his various ideas came from his observation of things around him. Leonardo Da Vinci was truly a great Renassiance man, his observational skills, ability to look at all the details and his great imagination lead him to think of things well ahead of his time. I think that if he had been borna few hundred years later he would be very rich indeed, because that was when all of his various ideas became possible.

What promted Brunelleschi's Dome?

In my view, Brunelleschi's creativity prompted the construction of the famous Florence Cathedral dome. Brunelleschi was a brilliant sculptor, as seen in his Jesus statues, and a fantastic architect. This was because he thought outside the box, which no one at that time had ever done before because their world was cut off from imagination, because the church restricted everything. But now that the Renaissance was here, the church did not play as big of a part in daily life. Brunelleschi was creative in thinking that he could build a dome with no scaffolding and no cement. But now he needed to prove to his commissioners that his logic was sound, or else they would not hire him for the job. He failed at first, but after intense study he came back, this time with a creative trick up his sleeve. He thought so creatively that he connected an egg, with the idea of the dome and asked his viewers to stand an egg on it's bottom. This, of course, didn't work, but then he asked them to lightly tap the egg, and break it's bottom, so it was flat. When they stood the egg up again, it worked. So amazed were Brunelleschi's commissioners that they grant Brunelleschi immediate control over the construction of the dome. They were surprised at the creativity at Brunelleschi's idea at using an egg, and realised that Brunelleschi wasn't a complete nutter. All in all, Brunelleschi was an incredibly successful man. He used a creative method for the dome, opened the eyes of people to the world of thinking outside the box, and he succeeded in the construction of the dome. All because of his creative leadership.

Where in the world do you get ideas from?

Ideas. Do you get them from a magical fairy land? Does some mystical force just plop ideas in your head? No. I think not. But ideas do come from a lot of places. These places could include, your brain, something that someone else has said, or what someone else has done. It is not often that you get completely new ideas from your brain, they are usually based on experiences you have had, or are from your subconscious that has seen things with you not knowing it. In fact, I think you would have to have a really exceptional mind to create something that has no relation to anything else in the world. Nowadays you might think that there is not much to be invented, but I bet that before we had phones, or ways of communicating long-distance people thought that to. But there are those you dream of such things. Sure we have ideas and dreams about things all the time, but some people are doing things to make that happen. Just look at all those studies with nano-technology. Otherwise we get most of our ideas from the things around us. You could get inspiration from a painting, a building, even an animal. If you try thinking of something creative, or just made up, with your eyes open, I can almost guaranty that what ever you think of will be based on something in real life. Look at Leonardo Da Vinci, he got his flying machine idea from birds. If there were no birds in the world, I doubt people would even think about being able to fly. Things that people say can trigger ideas as well. They might remind you of something or just say something that makes you think about it, and maybe connect other things with it to form an idea of some kind.
Overall, I think that you can get ideas from almost anything, but it is very hard to get completely new ideas, that are not based on anything else in the world. So no, you don't get ideas from a magical fairy land. You get them from everything around you.

My Favourite stroy from the Short Story Unit- What Makes a Good Story?

Over the whole Short Story unit my favourite story would have to be the "Lamb to the Slaughter" by Roald Dahl. This story really drew me in because of the unexpected turn of character, such as Mary Maloney, the perfect housewife. Then she whacks her husband over the head with a frozen leg of lamb. The plot was full of twists and turns, which made you want to keep reading and you never really new what was happening until afterward. It didn't tell you what was happening, it showed you what was happening. A good example of this is when Mary is forming her alibi by going to the Grocer's and coming home to find her husband dead. The conflict of the story was really interesting because it had so many. Mary vs. her husband, Mary vs. society (police) and Mary vs. herself. All of these were hard to figure out, Roald Dahl really made you read between the lines. All in all, "Lamb to the Slaughter" was a great read, with just enough of everything, even sadistic humor, like when she whacks with the leg of lamb. It has great characterization, plot and conflict, which are all the things that make good stories.