"Credibility of Internet Sources"

 

I agree with what you said that the most dangerous and damaging research flaw is a personal bias, or choosing specific data for personal agenda. Personal bias can hinder quality decision-making. Imagine if our president gets skewed data. He may be signing or vetoing the wrong bills or programs. Indeed, like what you said, we need critical thinking, when processing data and information. This way, we can verify the validity and accuracy of our sources.

I understand what you mean when you said that Columbus wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella to inform them of his success. He wanted to assure them that he was on the right track since he found exotic lands with diverse human resources and raw materials. I also believe that Columbus narrated his voyages so that he can further whet the appetite of the monarchy in supporting his subsequent voyages. It is also good that you cited the names of these territories. It shows that Columbus sought to show respect to the monarchy, by telling them that he named new territories after them and other royal personalities.

I agree with you that the French treated the Indians differently than the English because the two groups had different motives. The desire for power and wealth are motives that can overwhelm people and push them to racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing practices. I wish that other colonizers were more like the French, who did not aim to annihilate other cultures.

I concur with you that religion splintered during colonial development. You gave a good example in explaining this point. Rodger Williams, for instance, had radical views that were ahead of his time. Maybe if more people were like him, much of Native American culture and infrastructure would have been preserved up to now.

I agree with you that this event was called a massacre because it fulfilled the propaganda need of starting a revolution against the British. It was indeed the perfect event to trigger a revolution. This shows how people with political motives can change the purposes of events to suit their agenda.

I see what you mean. Patriots and Loyalists shared similar motivations, because what they were fighting for promoted their self-interests. Loyalists believed that the status quo suited their conditions, while the Patriots wanted to change it so that they could enhance their political and economic powers. They all had self-interests that clashed with each other.

I strongly agree with you that Washington showed his remarkable ability to adapt during the war. He realized that he could not fight Britain near waters, such as oceans and lakes, because of the latter’s superior naval strength. Instead of giving up, he devised other strategies; he adapted to changing conditions and became a better leader in the process.

I agree with you that this is an interesting lecture, because like you, I learned the difficulties of uniting people with different, sometimes opposing, goals and visions in mind. You are right that as a politician, one must have great diplomatic and persuasive skills to excel during these times and to rally the people toward a common vision.

I know what you are saying. I also learned that the Constitutional Convention was called, because of the lack of unity among the states and the threat of being easily attacked by outsiders. Some politicians were also concerned with resolving pertinent issues of individual rights and slavery, so this was a crucial time to meet and discuss the constitution.

I agree with your main point that Jefferson is not a Federalist because once in power, he reduced the size and influence of the central government. For instance, in your example, while Hamilton built a navy, Jefferson promoted the development of a militia. He also overturned numerous taxes imposed during the Federalist terms of George Washington and John Adams. Indeed, I also believe that Jefferson promoted individual rights and curbed the powers of the state.