The Great Dying was “the General Crisis reminds us that climate often plays an important role in shaping human history” (Strayer, 561). This was the idea that couldn’t be considered a genocide. This was the theme that “whatever combination of factors explains the European acquisition of empires in the Americas, there was no doubting their global significance” (Strayer, 557). However, there had a situation that referred to “the demographic collapse of Native American societies” (Strayer, 557).
This was the historical record that the Great Dying took a lot of holds in the Americas, “it interacted with another natural phenomenon, this time one of the genuinely global proportions” (Strayer, 560). This is sometimes called “it was a period of unusually cool temperatures that spanned much of the early modern period, most prominently in the Northern Hemisphere” (Strayer, 560). Most scholars were kept arguing about the causes, based on the topic of the Great Dying.
Overall, the Great Dying was the best theme in American history in Europe.
2) What did native Siberians and Native Americans have in common in terms of their experiences with Europeans during the Early Modern period?:
Native Siberians and Native Americans had in common in terms of their experiences with Europeans during the Early Modern period were the Russian Empire. This was the historical perspective that it is “a small principality under Mongol control, Moscow became the center of a vast Russian Empire during the early modern era” (Strayer, 574). This is the process called Experiencing the Roman Empire.
First of all, “empire meant conquest” (Strayer, 573), meaning the Roman Empire is “in the long run Russian military” (Strayer, 574). However, there is based on the “modern weaponry and the organizational capacity of a state brought both the steppes and Siberia under Russian control” (Strayer, 573). Russia had enough authorities that used to demand “an oath of allegiance by which native peoples swore ‘eternal submission to the grand tsar,’ the monarch of the Russian Empire” (Strayer, 573 & 574).
Therefore, the Russian Empire is the major conflict between native Siberians and native Americans under weaponry control in Mongol.
3) Discuss the history and impact of the Indian Ocean trade network (the Sea Roads) from the Classical to Modern periods:
The Indian Ocean trade network (the Sea Roads) from the Classical to Modern periods in Eastern goods from its commercial network. This is "the viewpoint of an increasingly dynamic Europe, several major problems accompanied this pattern of trade" (Strayer, 603). First of all, "the source of supply for these much-desired goods lay solidly in Muslim hands" (Strayer, 603). This is the most immediate part that occurred in Egypt. This is just a “problem for Europeans lay in paying for Eastern goods” (Strayer, 603).
There has commerce in the Indian Ocean trade network. Therefore, it is shown in Map 14.1 in Strayer textbook p. 604. This is referred to as “Europeans in Asia in the Early Modern Era” (Strayer, 604). This is the meaning of the early modern era that has a lot of control in Asia, especially Europeans. However, it is just a trade “rather than empire, was the chief concern of the Western newcomers, who were not, in any event, a serious military threat to major Asian states” (Strayer, 604). This has happened in a lot of countries in the world, such as Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, and England, etc. This is “how they behaved in that world and what they created there differed considerably among the various European countries, but collectively they contributed much to the new regime of globalized trade” (Strayer, 604).
Overall, the Indian Ocean trade network is referred to as Sea Roads that contains commerce that “the Portuguese and then the Spanish, French, Dutch, and British found” (Strayer, 604) in the ancient world.
4) Look at the pie chart titled “The Destinations of Slaves” on page 627 of our textbook. What might people find surprising about the percentages of slaves who disembarked in different parts of the Americas? What factors explain why the percentages were this way?:
People might find surprising about the percentages of slaves who disembarked in different parts of the Americas because the American population has a less percentage that it only contained 8.2%. However, there has a viewpoint that "the chief outcome of the slave trade lay in the new trans-regional linkages that it generated as Africa became a permanent part of an interacting Atlantic world" (Strayer, 626). This is the way that the Americas had "made an enormous impact on both demographically and economically" (Strayer, 628). This is what people are observed as the American population contains African slaves in the 19th century. However, there has contained bigger percentages of slaves, which are the Caribbean and Brazil in the United States.
This is an enormous number of “outnumbered European immigrants to the Americas by three or four to one, and West African societies were increasingly connected to an emerging European-centered world economy” (Strayer, 628). This is the reason why African people were “transformed the lives and societies of people on both sides of the Atlantic” (Strayer, 628). Also, I’d think people in the Caribbean and Brazil will be transformed for their lives, too. This is because the Caribbean and Brazil are located near the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, this process is called “The Destinations of Slaves” (Strayer, 627).
Overall, “The Destinations of Slaves” (Strayer, 627) was the best way to show in the statical change which is calculated by the pie chart between Mainland North America, Mainland Spanish America, Caribbean, and Brazil. These countries are contained with slaves for the African population in the Americas.
5) What does Strayer mean by the “echoes of Atlantic Revolutions”? Cite examples and details from the historical record in your response. Are the Atlantic Revolutions still echoing in the 21st Century?:
According to Strayer, the “echoes of Atlantic Revolutions,” it is the “world crisis“ (Strayer, 698). This kind of meaning is used as “the Safavid dynasty that had ruled Persia (now Iran) for several centuries had completely collapsed, even as the powerful Mughal Empire governing India also fragmented” (Strayer, 698) in the 1730s. At the same time, the Ottoman Empire had been threatened by Arabia, “and its religious ideals informed major political upheavals in Central Asia and elsewhere” (Strayer, 698). This is what Atlantic Revolutions are important that rebellion had been crushed in the Russian Empire. This is under the rule of Catherine the Great because of peasant uprisings in 1773-1774.
The Atlantic revolutions had happened in the Americas that “took place within a larger global framework” (Strayer, 698). There is a reason like “the other upheavals, they too occurred in the context of expensive wars, weakening states, and destabilizing processes of commercialization” (Strayer, 698). The comparison is different than the Atlantic revolutions were seemed distinctive in several ways to European imperial states. These states are “Britain, France, and Spain in particular—were global rather than regional. In the so-called Seven Years’ War (1754–1763), Britain and France joined the battle in North America, the Caribbean, West Africa, and South Asia” (Strayer, 698).
Furthermore, the Atlantic revolutions were different from each other that North America and France had a conflict between colonies and monarchy. Therefore, this is lead by the American revolutionary leader Thomas Jefferson, who “was the U.S. ambassador to France on the eve of the French Revolution” (Strayer, 698 & 699).
6) What did feminists and abolitionists have in common? How and why did they sometimes work together?:
Feminists and abolitionists had in common that echoes of the Atlantic revolutions contained “three major movements arose to challenge continuing patterns of oppression or exclusion” (Strayer, 714). However, feminists and abolitionists had different types of meanings: “abolitionists sought the end of slavery; nationalists hoped to foster unity and independence from foreign rule; and feminists challenged male dominance” (Strayer, 714 & 715). These movements are bored to be the Atlantic revolutions, “and although they took root first in Europe and the Americas, each came to have a global significance in the centuries that followed” (Strayer, 715).
There is a conflict between feminists and abolitionists, which is called slavery’s abolition. This is the reason why it is “a remarkable transformation occurred in human affairs as slavery, widely practiced and little condemned since at least the beginning of civilization, lost its legitimacy and was largely ended” (Strayer, 715) in between 1780 and 1890. In this amazing situation, Atlantic revolutions’ ideas and practices “played an important role” (Strayer, 715). This is what Enlightenment thinkers used to mention about as slavery is still “a violation of the natural rights of every person, and the public pronouncements of the American and French revolutions about liberty and equality likewise focused attention on this obvious breach of those principles” (Strayer, 715). This process is called a “critical of slavery” (Strayer, 715), which was an increasingly changeable in every slavery’s life in the 18th century.
Overall, feminists and abolitionists are sometimes in common, but sometimes be different. Therefore, feminists and abolitionists are referred to the Atlantic revolutions’ slavery while its ideas and practices played a major role in the 18th century.
8) What was the Industrial Revolution? Where and when did it begin? Discuss its long-term significance to people, cities, and the planet:
The Industrial Revolution was “a human response to that dilemma as nonrenewable fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas replaced the endlessly renewable energy sources of wind, water, wood, and the muscle power of people and animals” (Strayer, 738). It began in Western Europe, especially in Great Britain between 1750 and 1900. It relates to “the Scientific Revolution and accompanied the unfolding legacy of the French Revolution to utterly transform European society and to propel Europe into a temporary position of global dominance” (Strayer, 738). However, the Agricultural Revolution had happened somewhere around 12,000 years ago, which had changed fundamentally for human life. In addition, it “also transformed was the human relationship to the natural world as our species learned to access energy resources derived from outside of the biosphere—coal, oil, gas, and the nucleus of atoms” (Strayer, 738).
The Industrial Revolution sometimes refers to Industrial Britain because it contained “the dirt, smoke, and pollution of early industrial societies are vividly conveyed in this nineteenth-century engraving of a copper foundry in Wales” (Strayer, 737). This kind of congestion had formed since the end of the 18th century in England all over the world. This is also referred to as the population of “the global context for this epochal economic transformation lies in a very substantial increase in human numbers from about 375 million people in 1400 to about 1 billion in the early nineteenth century” (Strayer, 738). This is the reason why the population had been increased as “global energy demands began to push against the existing local and regional ecological limits” (Strayer, 737).
Overall, the Industrial Revolution totally refers to its long-term significance to people, cities, and the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment