P.A.P.E.R. Giovanni Boccaccio

Purpose of the author in preparing the document:

The author wrote this document to share his reasons for why the spread of the Black Plague occurred.   Throughout his account of the event, there were several references to how people tried to heal victims of the Black Plague through attempts at religious cures. The author also states the religious connection between the spread of the Black Plague and god’s view on humans.  He says that the plague came “either because of the influence of heavenly bodies or because of god’s just wrath” as a punishment for humans being wicked.  This shows that the author believed that the plague came because of religious reasons.  He believes people died because they didn’t live by religious standards.  This shows that the point of this piece is to show that the Black Plague occurred because of a deity or other religious figures wanted to punish humans

Argument and strategy used to achieve goals:

The author used great detail when exclaiming how gruesome the symptoms of the Black Plague were.  He talks about the size and gruesomeness of the swelling on victims. By doing this, he makes the reader feels sympathy and sadness for the victims. Then, as the reader asks himself, why such a thing could happen to so many people, the author provides an explanation: that people were not acting righteously. The author put his audience in a position where they wanted an explanation for why the Plague struck, and then he gave them his reasoning.

Presuppositions and values:

Based on the time period that the author was writing in, there weren’t many rational scientific reasons for why a plague like this could start.  Religious punishment was the only reason that many people could agree with.  Today, we can scientifically find why plagues like this have occurred.  Therefore, I disagree with the author’s reasons for why the plague hit. If I were to use facts for this text in a paper, I would not use the information about religious reasons to share my reasoning for why the plague occurred.  I would only use facts that the author could back up with evidence

Epistemology

The truth content in the text seems very credible.  Seeing as this author was in Florence while the plague hit, he had very solid information about what the infected people and city looked like. Accounts of what happened and what things looked like are most likely true. However, his reasons for why the plague hit cannot be evaluated as true, because that is his opinion.

Relate to other texts:

This text is similar to another text about the Black Plague in Florence by Marchione di Coppo Stefani, called The Florentine Chronicle.  This second text also explains the mass chaos and death in Florence very similarly to how Boccaccio did.  Because of this, I feel comfortable trusting Boccaccio’s account of what Florence looked like during the spread of the Black Plague. 

Religion Is The Answer

In a time of destruction, death, and sadness, what have people turned to for support?  How do people feel comfort in times of crises?  These questions were on my mind as I read about the surviving individuals during the black plague. 

During the 1300's, the Bubonic Plague spread through Europe and Asia killing millions. In cities, the Plague was triggered by the infestation of rodents that thrived by feeding on the immense amounts of garbage.  According to Giovanni Boccaccio, a witness at the time, the symptoms of the plague were usually swelling "either in the groin or under the armpits" to around the size of apples.  Then, people would start to see spots on their bodies.  At this point, they knew they were facing sure death.  After a short period of time, cities became littered with countless numbers of corpses lying in the streets.

I would assume that the survivors looked around for a rationale for what had happened.  They needed an explanation for the destruction of their world.  They also needed hope and faith and something to look to for support.

They turned to religion. During the Bubonic Plague, many people looked to a god and their religions for reasons as to why people were dying and what could save them. In a piece written by Giovanni Boccaccio, the author explains how he believes that the black plague was brought upon people because they didn't live by the righteous standards of their religion. Praying to a god gave people hope that they could survive. The people both blamed their problems on their lack of religious observance while they also looked to a deity for help.

To address my question from earlier, I believe that even today, religion is the only thing that can give people comfort and answers.  Since the scientific revolution, many people have turned to rational reasons for answers.  We now know that the spread of the Black Death was not because a god was punishing humans, but rather because humans were living in unsanitary conditions. However, this answer brings me no comfort.  If I were living during the time period of the Bubonic Plague, this answer would have given me no comfort.  Sure, it is a reason for what was going on, but it doesn't give any hope that the situation will improve.

Therefore, I believe that looking to a god or a religion is the only way for people to find answers that both comfort them and bring them hope.  Whether religious reasoning is rational or not, people need comfort in times of crisis, and religion supplies just that.

Nature Controls the World Population

I believe that environmental disasters and diseases are nature’s way of preserving resources by controlling the world’s population.

In our technologically modern world, we have created countless ways to avoid death and destruction in the midst of natural disasters. These include systems for anticipating future tsunamis, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions. Developments of medicine have extended life expectancy to over 70 years in most developed countries. Though we are extremely fortunate to have technology and medicines that allow us to better control how our environment treats us, these advancements have come with a price.  

There are far more people being born than dying everyday, a balance that is supposed to be relatively even.  This massive growth in human population is a problem because our world is running out of natural resources. In the chapter called Disease and the Growing World Population in our textbook, it describes how the Black Death and other plagues lead to horrific numbers of victims in the European and Asian populations. Even though a mass amount of death is never something we hope for, the drop in world population also had its benefits. After the Black Plague ran its course, there were less people alive and therefore more food and water for the living. The Black Plague may have been nature’s way of saying, hey humans, stop growing so fast; you need to conserve resources! I do not mean to make a joke of on something that was catastrophic to the human race.  However, the point that I am trying to prove is that the Black Death had benefits for the preservation of resources.

Another example of a disaster that inadvertently helped the environment was in ancient Rome.  In ancient Rome, the government was thinking too much about supplying its people with food in the short-term, and not enough about running out of resources for the future.  In order for the government to produce that much grain, “they had to cut down thousands of trees to create farms.” Fewer trees led to soil erosion, which then led to flooding of the Tiber River. When the floods receded, they left a malaria-carrying mosquito infestation. This wiped out around 10 percent of the Roman population, later causing the resource-scarce empire to collapse.  Could this spread of this disease have been nature's way of stopping the Romans from further ruining their environment?

The constant growth in our population will eventually lead to more and more scarce resources, regardless of whether we effectively conserve right now.  I hope I do not sound unsympathetic to the millions that die in horrible natural disasters. However, I do see that when people die, there are less resources being used.  This is just how our world works. My only hope is that in the future, the human race can find away to survive while preserving our natural resources. Their needs to be an equilibrium between what humans take from the world, and how fast resources can be replenished.  If we cannot find a way to coexist with our environment, we may face new environmental disasters that could kill millions just like the Black Plague.

The Roman Populists

What could the Roman civilization have done to save itself from destruction? Was it the government's fault that deforestation occurred and the environment was ruined, eventually resulting in the end of this world power? The Romans coexisted with their environment perfectly well until they started cutting down trees to make free food (not something that needed to be done).  Was this poor decision made for the wrong reasons?

According to our reading, the Roman civilization's downfall started when the government came up with the idea to grow crops to feed Rome’s common people for free.  It was a politically intelligent decision, because if the government could convince the citizens of Rome that their leaders had their best intentions at heart (feeding them for free), chances were high that the common people wouldn’t revolt against the governing body.  The free food bought the people’s loyalty.  In addition, in the case of a revolt, the people could be deprived of the food they needed.

Yet, this idea turned into a catastrophe for Rome.  To produce free food for such a large quantity of people, Rome needed to develop large new farms.  They needed to clear out the land by cutting down tons of trees.  This idea eventually backfired. The removal of trees led to soil erosion, which made the land unfertile. Then they couldn’t grow enough food to sustain life in Rome.

Further, the removal of trees created conditions for disease. Soil erosion allowed the Tiber River to flood more easily. As the Tiber River floods receded, the land was hit by an overwhelming growth in the mosquito population.  This brought a disease that Rome had not encountered before: malaria.  Malaria wiped out at least 10% of the Roman population.   But it got worse. Because of the drop in population, fewer taxes were paid. This led to the end of public work projects (like operational sewage systems), which led to further unsanitary living conditions, and less financing for the military.  The infrastructure of Rome crumbled and so did their ability to keep their civilization safe.  

I would argue that the environmental catastrophes that ended the Roman Empire were caused because the government cared more about staying in power than in doing the right thing for the Empire.  It was trying to be too populist.  The ideals behind populism are great.  The lower classes get to have influence on the government and have a say in how their country is run.  A government should look out for the welfare of common citizens for the purpose of creating a fair society. Yet in ancient Rome, the government chose to feed the common people for free because it was probably a way to promote their political careers. If the common people weren't happy with the way they were being treated, they may have revolted.  

I believe every government should pay attention to the interest of all of its people, but not become too populist be partially populous. Instead of taking it upon themselves to provide for the common people, a government's job should be to create conditions in which people can obtain what they need.  Governments should support businesses and agricultural projects, not take full charge of them.  As seen in Ancient Rome, if a government is in charge of all food production, then decisions can be made that will negatively effect the environment because of political interests. The only situation in which a government should be in charge of food production or distribution is when the companies that are in charge of it aren't providing enough food for everyone, including the common people.

A major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire was due to an environmental collapse of the civilization.  I believe that the reason for this catastrophe was the fault of an overly populist Roman government.

The Government's Role in Saving Our Environment

Should a country's government make laws against harming the environment, or should there just be various kinds of financial incentives given to individuals who live environmentally conscious life-styles?

Today, our world faces a crisis that was not attended to sufficiently in the past. With the rate of pollution that we are releasing into our atmosphere, into our water, and onto our land, we are facing consequences.  We are watching our poles melt from global warming, we are losing fresh water sources, and seeing our cities get ruined with immense amounts of garbage and litter.  Despite the damage to natural resources, individuals still aren't motivated enough to start living more environmentally healthy lives.  This is because it is more expensive to live environmentally conscious life-styles.

It is obvious that someone needs to make people think about what they are doing to our world.  The pollution that humans create is an externality. (The definition of a negative externality is a spillover cost that has to get paid eventually even if people did not agree to the action that creates that cost).  No one is paying to cover this cost now, but we will all pay soon with the loss of our resources.

I believe that in order for people to be more conscious about how important it is to save our environment, our government needs to get involved.  It is the only structure that has the money and ability to reach every household. However, our government cannot make this change through creating new laws. When a government makes its citizens protect their environment through laws, it can lead to laws that are inconvenient and expensive for citizens. If the government feels that everyone should only buy goods that were manufactured without releasing a lot of pollution, it probably means that the goods are more expensive.  This leads to a large percent of the country probably not being able to pay for them.   

Our government shouldn’t try to protect the environment with laws, but rather to create incentives to live environmentally friendly lives by rewarding the people who do so.  The government can give tax cuts or free public parking to individuals who live by the environmentally friendly standards that the government recommends. Whatever the benefit might be, people need to realize that not only are they helping their world and their future generations by making environmentally conscious decisions, but that they can also benefit (financially) in the short term.  

If people do not want to live environmentally healthy lives because of the financial costs for doing so, then simple economic incentives like saving money on taxes is an attractive way for a government to convince its citizens to help the world. 

Constant Scapegoating

Throughout history, minorities have often become scapegoats for all kinds of problems. Even though many people realize that the use of scapegoats is inhumane and unjust, why do humans still scapegoat today?

In the chapter called Disease and the Growing World Population in our history text book, the reading explains that during the times of the Bubonic plague, people felt the need to blame their misfortunes on someone.  In Europe, one of the minorities at the time were the Jews.  It became the Jew's fault that this disease was spreading. People said that Jews poisoned peoples' water and gave them the Bubonic plague. 

The scapegoating of Jews was something that had been around for a very long time.  The Jews were considered at fault for the unfortunate events that took place was when Judas, who people believed to be Jewish, gave Jesus up to the Romans.  During the middle ages, the Christians continued to blame the Jews for many of society’s worst problems, including the Bubonic Plague.

It is concerning to me that even though that people see that scapegoating minorities in the past was unfair, individuals continue to do it today, even if subconsciously.

A few weeks ago, a group of actors came to our school to perform a mock trial.  The reason for the trial in their performance was because a rich white man accused a poor black woman of stealing his watch without any solid evidence that it was actually her who had taken it.  The woman then accused the man of believing it was her just because she was black.  The man then called the woman’s boss and told her that he thought that the black woman had stolen his watch. Because of this accusation, the woman lost her job.  The woman came to court to sue the man for liable.  I found this scene extremely thought-provoking because it underlined a major issue in our society today.  People continue to have stereotypes about racial, ethnic, and religious groups.  These stereotypes develop and are allowed to persist because people who are different from the majority are often seen as scary or threatening.   It is also convenient to find a scapegoat for a problem that is hard to deal with or solve completely.

Even though many people realize that it is unfair to use minorities as scapegoats or to even scapegoat anyone at all, it is still purposefully and subconsciously done today.  Without substantial evidence of who is to blame for a disastrous event occurring, it is unjust to blame a misfortune on a scapegoat. 

Research Sources

(First four sources are already on source cards in a previous blog)
_________________________________________________________________________________


Day 1 Research:


http://search.proquest.com/docview/740247605/132AB48931D382803E0/10?accountid=3360
- background information on Haiti (state department)


http://search.proquest.com/docview/816539271/132AB4D7B656A8EAD08/2?accountid=3360
- NGO's not doing good job
- Amount of money Haiti received from American people from Red Cross
- Foreign money should go straight to people


http://search.proquest.com/docview/786538046/132AB4D7B656A8EAD08/3?accountid=3360
- What SERIOUS NGO'S need to do in order to help haiti - why improvements are slow


http://search.proquest.com/docview/840360015/132AB4D7B656A8EAD08/10?accountid=3360
- Why is improvement slow?
- NGO's not doing what's best


http://search.proquest.com/docview/896067959/132AB5CC04C1E00B56/14?accountid=3360
- Amount of money that goes to businesses (where is money going?)
_________________________________________________________________________________


Day 2 Research


http://search.proquest.com/docview/246834657/132C4CB3AD63F822A65/3?accountid=3360
- Lack of coordination between U.S. and UN


http://search.proquest.com/docview/816539271/132C4CFABD37A1D6250/16?accountid=3360
- NGO's inflated salaries taking money aways from people that need it


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12082047
- Haiti officials questioning NGO's help


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706511.html
- Dependance of foreign aid makes it hard for Haiti to grow on its own (economically)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/haiti-still-buried-under-_b_805839.html
- OXFAM and other NGO's blaming each other for lack of help
- Lack of jobs and money NGO's are creating


http://www.scribd.com/doc/46320380/OneYear-Followup-Report-Transparency-of-Relief-Organizations-Responding-to-2010-Haiti-Earthquake
- Report on progress
- Describes the different NGO's jobs and what they have done