Land is power. Argued by historians for years in the past and to be argued for years to come, the representation of power and wealth is still vague in the sense of tangible objects. When money was not available, Americans in the 1860s did whatever they could to gain as much property as they could. Because of their fear of failing, these Americans looked beyond their poverty and current issues troubling their lives. They did whatever was necessary to obtain this property. This desire escalated into constant fighting, and eventually the American Civil War.

When people have land, they feel more powerful. With the ownership of this property, they feel as if they have more rights than others with less land. When using a Greyhound bus as an example, “Landless people, with few exceptions, are relegated to the back of the bus .” With this idea set down in the society, even people of the modern day aim to own more property to feel more powerful in the society.

In the past Civil War, the fight for land caused 600,000 deaths throughout the country, affecting many families in tragic, negative ways. Are the lives of over half a million people worth fighting for ownership of land? Had the solution of land ownership came earlier, this massive slaughter would not have occurred in the first place, but why was it not established beforehand?

The Civil War being a result of land struggles is obvious; during the Civil War, the Homestead Act was established when President Abraham Lincoln signed it into law on May 20, 1862. However, why was it necessary to wait until thousands of people had already died before bringing this new law into perspective? The importance of the equality of people should have been emphasized before hand, but it hadn’t. Instead, only incomplete plans were made: “… support for the idea began decades later .”

To end the fighting between Americans for land ownership, the Homestead Act stated that “any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S. Government, could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land .” This was a clever way to award prizes to the citizens of the United States that did not fight against the government. As a generalization, all Americans had a desire to own land, but only those that did not harm the government would get rewarded.

There was a lot of additional thought behind the Homestead Act; the government had formed many plans before implementing this idea to the public. There were some catches and requirements to acquiring this land. “Claimants were required to ‘improve’ the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land .” In essence, people could not maintain possession of this land without doing anything with the land. This could only be done by people with a moderately average level of wealth: “Comparatively few laborers and farmers could afford to build a farm or acquire the necessary tools, seed, and livestock .”

As a result, this condition gave a safeguard to the government providing them with a guarantee that there will be a significant number of people not claiming any land due to their current social status. The poor remained poor: “The act, however, proved to be no panacea for poverty .”

Similar to everything established in the real world, there were also some serious flaws with the Homestead Act in addition to its successes. In many cases, there were fraudulent or corporate uses of this land. Companies took advantage of the Homestead Act and turned it into an unlawful business: “They would pay people to buy the top-of-the-line property which contained an abundance of resources such as timber, minerals, and oil .” When the government inquired the companies if there were any improvements to the land, they responded with a positive answer when improvements were minimal to none.

Because of these serious flaws that the Homestead Act was causing, the government was forced to end homesteading to halt the crimes of corporate businesses using the land for their own personal, illegal purposes. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ended homesteading. The government concluded that the citizens of the United States owning this property was not the best and productive way to use it, “the government believed that the best use of public lands was for them to remain under government control .”

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act is now a United States federal law that governs the way the public lands of the United States are managed. Instead of giving land to anyone who would claim it, the land would remain public property and owned by the citizens of America: “management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of American people .”

As stated before, the poor or lower-class people did not play a massively significant role in the Civil War. Even when they were offered land, they were not able to use the provided land productively; thus, they were not a part of homesteading. Instead, it is the higher powers that are fighting, as said by Marxist historians: “… imperialist rulers battling each other for greater power, and using tools such as nationalism and religion to delude people into joining them …” These higher powers fighting for more power leads to the original question, which is if land has a direct connection between power.

In the southern part of the United States, the people with more wealth had possession of slaves. One of the key conflicts of the Civil War fought about slavery and if it should continue on: “Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories .” The higher powers that had more land needed slaves to maintain the land that they owned; otherwise their production and work efficiency would decrease dramatically. From these higher powers fighting for what they want, the war began: “Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s .”

Slavery was an important part in the South’s lives, especially because they were the key maintenance providers of the land that they owned. These land-owning powers possessed these slaves because of the power and wealth they had. The power and wealth came from the land they owned, which was maintained by slaves. This causes a chain reaction that does not end. The production repeats over and over, and the only people benefiting from this are the land-owners who also own the slaves. If a major component in this chain were to be taken away, the entire chain would fall apart and the owners would not be able to maintain the land.

To maintain this power, the powers in the South had to fight for what was best for them. The North had different views, but they did not have slaves running their land-owning power system. As a result, “fears of eventual emancipation were much greater in the South than in the North .”

As slavery being the leading cause and fought-about concept of the American Civil War, the roots once again lead to land struggles. As the African Americans started to end their slave lives and run away, severe punishment was placed on them. There was no purpose of running away either: “… they will be returned if they escape .”

Another argument about the land owning is the equality between races: “Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality .” The African Americans did not have a chance to own land and become powerful like the whites. They were never given the chance to own land, so they did not have the same power. Because the African Americans also wanted this power, they fought back against the whites to potentially gain some land of their own. The whites that already owned land did not like this especially because there would then be a lot of other people wanting the land that they already owned. Thus, they considered the African race “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race .”

During the English Industrial Revolution, the middle class was also fighting for as much property as they could. While stating that property is power, they worked as hard as they could to gain as much as they could in little time. They revolutionized the way goods were made, and introduced machines into the production process .

From these struggles that the entire population had, starting from low-class slaves to the middle-class workers made during the English Industrial Revolution to the high-class land-owners that had slaves, the fight for power continued endlessly, even throughout the mass slaughter of men during war.

Even when using Colonel David Crockett as an example, the life he lived and the way he died had direct involvement with the acquiring of land. Davy Crockett was elected to the Committee of Propositions and Grievances and the United States House of Representatives multiple times. Upon defeat during reelection, he went to Texas to explore the area . During this key time period in his life, he was asked to explore the River Grande for a few days. The request was made by Judge John Forbes, and he stated that Davy Crockett would receive 4,600 acres of land as payment. With this motivation in mind, Crockett went for exploration, seeing land and power in the near future. However, when he fought at the Alamo, he died .

As clearly displayed, even heroes of the time have risked and lost their lives fighting for potential land of their own. When this is viewed from an amplified perspective, a war breaks out between giant masses of people fighting for power. However, as stated by the Articles of Confederation established in 1777, “only the central government is allowed … to declare war. No states may have navies or standing armies, or engage in war, without permission of Congress .” However, with conflicts arising in all locations, and the South forming their own alliances, nothing else could be done.

When the war breaks out, there are more losses than just the lives of the soldiers. As stated in Article VIII of the Articles of Confederation: “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare …” Not only are the participants of the war losing soldiers, but they are also losing funds. These funds could be put into promoting the condition of the land that these higher powers own. Or, more land could be purchased with these extra funds by the higher powers. However, they choose to go to war and risk these funds instead.

Referring back to the equality of slaves with whites, there are many cases where the African Americans are treated unfairly from their owners. Ken Burns describes this situation as negatively as possible, bringing in all the bad situations that arise when this happens. He informs viewers of slaves that would rather be dead than be a slave.

He brings in all the worst case scenarios and displays the slavery as a bad thing that could potentially have prevented the war. If the whites had not had the greed to own land, they would not have purchased slaves in the first place, and none of this would have happened in the first place . “The effect is to add misery to moral wrong as a reason for emancipation …”

During the war, slavery was still an active part in the South, and the Union was hesitant to do something with the slaves. However, when the war extended on while appearing to have no end, “the question of what to do about slavery became more general .” As the war progressed, the North realized that the power of the South depended on the slaves. Without the slaves, the land could not be supported and the power of the Confederacy would decline. The North made a plan to eliminate the South of their slaves.

Making the slaves of the Confederacy their allies, the Union went on to eliminate the power of the South, draining them of their necessary labor done by their slaves. The Union worked efficiently to eliminate the South at the end of the Civil War.

The quieter leaders of the South did formidable damage as well. Similar to the passage stated in Rip Van Winkle: “’… Alas! Gentlemen,” cried Rip, some-what dismayed, ‘I am a poor quiet man, a native of the place, and a loyal subject of the king, God bless him!’ Here a general shout burst from the bystanders …” People like this drove the Confederacy to failure, resulting in the loss of the power-supplying land. The fight for land declined, and the war was over; the representation of power by land had ended. The slaves were set free, and the struggle for undeserving power had ceased.

When we were to select our project, we selected to experiment with Daphnia magna. Daphnia are crustaceans better known as water fleas. They are aquatic animals that live anywhere water is found. Daphnia are filter-feeders that reproduce parthenogenetically.

The purpose of this experiment was to find out if exposing Daphnia magna to a salt concentration altered their average heartbeat rate. The null hypothesis to our experiment was that the average heartbeat rate of the daphnia will not change when it is exposed to a salt concentrate; that is, the heartbeat rate of daphnia will remain identical even when the environment changes.

Before we started the experiment, we concocted our solution for our experiment. First we acquired and measured out five grams of salt. We then mixed it with 500mL of tap water. When thoroughly shaken, we let the solution sit while we did our first portion of our experiment.

To acquire data for our control, we captured three daphnia from their original habitat. Then, one-by-one, we placed the daphnia on a microscope slide containing enough water so the daphnia would be fully submerged. Then, using a compound light microscope, we observed the heartbeat of the daphnia. Using a finger clicker, we counted the heartbeat rate of the daphnia for fifteen seconds, multiplied that value by four, and recorded that number in Microsoft Excel. When the daphnia was used for five trials, we returned the daphnia to its original habitat and got a new daphnia. We repeated this process using three different daphnia, doing five trials for each daphnia which resulted in fifteen data points.

Next, for testing our salt concentration, we acquired a daphnia from its original habitat and submerged it in the one-percent salt concentration. After allowing the daphnia to swim around in the solution for five minutes, we took them out of the solution and placed them under a compound light microscope. Like before, we counted the heartbeat rate using the finger clicker and recorded five trials for each daphnia, recording the data in Microsoft Excel as we went along. When we completed five trials for three different daphnia, we had a total of fifteen data points for the one-percent salt concentrate.

Finally, after we completed our data-collection process, we combined and organized all the information in one spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel and ran some descriptive statistics on them. Furthermore, we performed a two-sample f-Test for variances. Upon receiving the results, we conducted a t-Test assuming unequal variances.

The results for the descriptive statistical analysis shown in Table 2 gave us background information on the data points for the control and salt solution groups shown in Table 1. The results of the two-sample f-Test for variances (F = 0.248, df = 14, P = 0.0135) lead us to our t-Test assuming unequal variances (T = -4.017, df = 21, P = 0.0006). Because the probability was less than 0.05, we rejected our null hypothesis, concluding that the average heartbeat rate of the Daphnia in both solutions were not equal. Results show that the heartbeat rate increases in salt concentrations when compared to the control, as shown in Figure 1.

The evidence concluded states that the heartbeat rate of Daphnia increases when exposed to a salt solution. A similar experiment was conducted at the Natural Science Department at Edgewood College. They concluded that the survival rate of Daphnia decreases as the salt solution increases, and this was predicted. However, this was predicted; they wanted to know what level was safe enough for Daphnia to survive before they start dying. If the salt concentration increases up to a specific level, the Daphnia survive fine; no Daphnia died when 2.5 grams of salt was added per liter of water. However, as the concentration increased beyond that, the Daphnia started to die at a rapidly increasing rate, potentially because of over excessive heartbeat rate. This provided a point where the students knew their watershed was no longer safe (Daphnia Bioassay for Salt Toxicity).

Another experiment on the condition of Daphnia upon the exposure of salt was conducted and concluded that salt up to a specific level will strengthen the Daphnia that is exposed. However, similar to the previous experiment mentioned, this also concluded that over exposure to salt is bad for the survival of the Daphnia. When Daphnia were exposed to a specified salt solution for a period of twenty-two hours, they either died rapidly or got stronger, depending on the previous condition of the Daphnia. This is linked to the increasing heartbeat rate either being too much for the Daphnia and causing it to die, or strengthening its cardiovascular system and providing a longer life for it (Reaction of Daphnia magna).

1. How well were you able to meet these two standards through this assessment and what evidence is there in your assessment that you met the standards? Be specific about evidence.

   When looking back to the previous assessment, I believe that I was able to meet these standards very well. The data that I collected was specific to the question that I decided to pursue for my experiment. After completing the procedure for completing the experiment, I documented the step-by-step process accurately. In addition, to better organize the data, I used tables to record the data points found from my experiment. With all this completed, I drew valid conclusions based on the data that I collected. There is evidence that supports this in the template that all students were required to use for the experimental design. The template provides some good guides to meeting all of the standards of significant learning.

2. Since this assessment, have you shown further growth toward meeting these standards? If so, where do you feel this is demonstrated? If not, what might have helped you move further along towards meeting these standards?

   I believe that since this assessment, before that, and beyond, I have shown constant growth towards meeting all of the standards of significant learning. I feel that this is demonstrated in all of the laboratory work that I do, especially because we are provided with a template that guides us through the process of successful lab write-ups. There are many things other than the template that could help me towards meeting the standards; they include subtle things such as practicing the process repeatedly, and more considerable things such as reviewing lab work and adding as much accurate and organized information as possible before considering it to be complete.

3. As you prepare for your final assessment task in SI Physics (which is also lab-based and will also focus on these two SSLs), what strategies can you think of that might allow you to continue to grow in your ability to successfully address these SSLs?

   As mentioned repeatedly before, I believe that the template provides a very apparent and easy-to-use guide that can make anyone that uses it successful in following all the standards for significant learning. However, if this template was not provided, or even in addition to the template, continuous practice of meeting all the standards could assist in keeping all the work higher in level of ability. In addition, making the effort to keeping all the information put in the laboratory write-ups as accurate and ethical as possible will help in meeting the standards as well. I believe that if a student defeats his or herself, they will be able to provide an accurate, efficient result.

The narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas tells a story about a slave from Maryland in the 1800s. His life was a lot better than other slaves’. He was given the opportunity to be educated and learn how to read. Later, as a fugitive, he ran away up north to start his own family. When married, he changed his last name to mask his identity and continued to promote himself as an educated black.

However, before his life became better, he had to suffer through what almost every other slave has to survive. Similar to other slaves, Douglass did not know who he really was, why he was working for his named master, and what he could potentially do with his life. He obviously didn’t realize what was being done to him, and he didn’t realize what he could make of himself. He may have heard stories about other slaves attempting to escape from this prison, but instead losing their lives. He heard stories about things around him, but couldn’t comprehend them.

He received abuse, but he didn’t realize that he didn’t deserve it: “I did not, when a slave, understand the deep meaning of those rude and apparently incoherent songs. I was myself within the circle; so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear.” He felt as if everyone around him was equal, including his white master. He felt accepted, and that’s all that truly mattered to him in his heart.

Upon discovering the true reason that the slaves were there, things changed. Douglass finally concluded that he didn’t belong there: “In coming to a fixed determination to run away, we did more than Patrick Henry, when he resolved upon liberty or death.” Finally, he realized that the true meaning of living life was to be free and one one’s own with no white master controlling their every movement.

In Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” three major topics about individualism are covered: the importance of self-reliance, the role of self-reliance as an individual, and the contribution of self-reliance to the society. Together they form an overall impression of independence and nonconformity.

To begin, an example that was given that was a model of self-reliance was children. Because they are so young, they are not able to be questioning to the theories of life. They believe what they think, and they are not hesitant to do what they wish to do at whatever time they want. When compared to adults, children accomplish a lot more because they are less cautious; they do not delay their decisions of what they believe is the right thing to do.

Moving on, being self-reliant as an individual includes following your instincts. Emerson writes that spontaneity is what drives us to success: “The inquiry leads us to that source, at once the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct. We denote this primary wisdom as Intuition, whilst all later teachings are tuitions.” Secondary thoughts detract from our powerful instinctual ability, which would result in poorer choices being made in the future. When people are self-reliant, they believe in themselves to choose what is right from their soul; although wisdom is a factor, it would not alter the final outcome dramatically or significantly.

Finally, Emerson discusses the role self-reliance has in the society. He states that all fortunes are unnecessary. One must feel ashamed of having property instead of feeling more powerful than others. In an amplified view, if one acquired riches in a way that is not honest, he or she must feel guiltier. When life becomes a fight for the amount of property one has, corruption occurs and the true meaning of working in the community gets degraded. Instead, people should live with the bare minimums, obtaining only what they need to survive. The only necessary fortune: “The secret of fortune is joy in our hands.”

In summary, the suggestions of Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” provide the members of the society a better and more beneficial way to live by relying on one’s self over depending on others to do things for them.

You turn on the television to watch your favorite late-night television show when you’re instantly blinded by… a fuzzy screen? You look more closely at the television screen when you realize that you don’t need to renew your eyeglass prescription. Instead the television broadcasting company has chosen to censor what it is that they’re showing. Do we want portions of our television shows to be cut out? Research shows that 83% of cable programs not specifically meant for children had some form of sexual content in them. However, how much of this, if any, needs to be filtered from the viewers?

The government has come along and monitored what the citizens of the United States have been watching on television. The government has decided what is good and what is bad. The government has chosen what words we are allowed to hear and what words we cannot. The government has chosen what we can see and what we cannot. How much longer will this madness go on? Is the entire population of the United States so stupid that they cannot monitor their own television watching?

It is true that some children cannot control themselves from watching inappropriate material on television. However, most children have responsible parents for a reason. Some people are old enough to see this material and not get offended by it, but for the benefit of the children, the entertainment of their program gets degraded. If the parents become true parents, they will take enough caution to prevent their children from learning anything that the society shuns. And if the children do happen to see this inappropriate material on television, they learned something new; they were going to learn it eventually, so they might as well learn it now.

So, not only is the government depriving adults of full entertainment, but they are potentially depriving children from their full education. What the kids could learn from television is possibly being filtered by the government. Of course, the government can’t be that idiotic. They would never censor out something that would be beneficial for the children. But who likes Barney these days? Children need a better form of modern education. They need to learn more about the real world. What they learn from educational kids programs doesn’t happen in the real world anymore! It has become a violent community, with over half a million people murdered in only one year.

Of course, this concept is not foreign to anybody that is truly alive today. Everyone has experienced a time when the program they were watching has been filtered by some sort of higher power. It isn’t the government, you say? The government doesn’t directly sift through the programs, but the television broadcasting corporations does. If millions of people see something they shouldn’t, the broadcasting corporation experiences millions of dollars of losses. This frustration that both television viewers and providers experience is unbearable. Is this ever going to stop?

In one way, it is the society’s fault that censorship happens in the first place. The censorship is bringing down the society; however, it is the society that’s causing the censorship. If nobody considered any part of the English language offensive, they would not have to be censored out. If these words replaced by short beeps were not considered offensive, they would not have to be censored out. If we did not consider portions of our own form of communication offensive, nothing would have to be censored out.

So simply, a solution would be to change our own language. This is easier said than done, however. The English language has evolved throughout the centuries that the language has been around. The language is constantly being “modernized,” with new words and phrases added to it all the time. Slang is being constructed as we speak, with new insults being created by the minute. Do we really have the power to stop this?

Together we can change the way the government views the United States population as a whole. Little by little, we can make changes of the aspects the government considers when censoring our material. When we prove that we are mature enough, the censoring may stop. But until then, don’t expect the fuzzy screens to go away.