TASKS IN CLASS

1.       Do you think the colonies had good reason to declare Independence? Why?

I think the colonies had good reason to declare independence. No one should be

Submissive or feel inferior just because they were part of a colony founded hundreds of years ago. Thomas Jefferson said these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. He did not want to be treated different and unreasonably by the founders just because he was a part of the inhabitants in the colony. They wanted to be a part of America, as an independent state.

2.       Should one country be able to colonize another? When should a colony be granted Independence?

I do not think a country should be able to colonize another because it takes away the rights and the privileges an independent has. They loose their ability to develop their society to the countries best. When a country colonizes another, they immediately starts to influent the culture and the society based on their culture and traditions.

The colonized country loose their identity.

A colony should be granted independence when they want so. It is almost breach of human rights when another country takes over and colonizes without permission. The minute they asks for independence, they should get it, if you ask me.

3.       The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans "the right to bear arms". Many Americans still feel this is important for personal safety and in case they need to revolt against their own government, they argue that the Minutemen and the local militias only won the fight for Independence because they had firearms.

What do you think?

Should everyone have the right to bear arms? All kinds of arms?

I do not think Americans need the right to bear arms. It is a safe country with functioning police and army, and they do not have to feel unsafe. In addition, they have an argument for weapon that says, “If they need to revolt against their own government, they need the right to bear arms”.  I do not think this ever would be a scenario when they have a working democracy. If this would be a problem, there would no longer be a democracy. When they also argument with events that happened under the Independence War, they have to little to argument for, and I mean the arguments against it weights more in this discussion.

All the school-massacres have happened because of the right to bear weapon for everyone.

If they absolutely need a system like this, I think they should test the persons and consider if they are suitable and responsible enough to handle a gun.

When it comes to different types of arms, I think it would be up to the person itself, but the government should approve it.

4.       If you were to present your nation's history in the same way as above, which events would you choose? Why?

I would have chosen to write about;

The Viking-era (800-1050)

This era began with the attack on Lindisfarne in North-England.

The Vikings lived of plundering, sailing and taking land.

The independence in 1814

Norway got a formal constitution in 1814 after being in union with Denmark.

The union lasted from 1380 to 1814. Norway later, that year entered a new union with Sweden.

The dissolution of the union in 1905

Domestic self-government, but they shared king with Sweden and their foreign politics.

World War 2 (1939-1945)

Started in September 1939. Norway declared themselves as a neutral country, but was occupied 9 April 1940. The occupation lasted for five years.