Fall of Rome essay example

Posted in Uncategorized on October 28, 2009 by John Murnane

Kiana Nedele
AP World History
22 October 2009
.

The Fall of Rome: Death by Overexpansion

.

The many factors that led to Rome’s fall were serious indeed; however, they would have been easily countered and many may not have occurred without the main catalyst—overexpansion.  By the second century C.E., the empire had become huge and bloated and could grow no more.  From this one factor a myriad of others soon grew, including poor leadership, government debt, a weakened army, and civil unrest.  When outside factors appeared, such as disease and military competition, once-mighty Rome was unable to fend off the constant assaults.  As government control weakened, the policy became “every man for himself” as various generals set themselves up as regional rulers.  Battered inside and out, Rome could bear the pressure for only so long.  Overexpansion and the host of problems it caused combined to spell the death sentence for Roman civilization.

.

The Roman lust for power was potent, and as a result, they set out to systematically destroy all enemies.  Armies marched north, south, east, and west, conquering everyone in their paths, including Rome’s one true competitor in land and trade, the Phoenician colony of Carthage.  Prisoners of war were sent back to Rome in chains, profiting the booming slave trade and providing entertainment for the masses in the form of gladiatorial contests.  All lands and natural resources were seized by the government, providing the state with multiple sources of revenue.  By 180 C.E., Rome had reached its apex.  It was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the world.
.

A scant 50 years, later, however, Rome was already in the process of decline.  Glutted on the spoils of war, the empire simply could expand no farther.  The loss of new territories meant that there were no new sources of income for the country.  The slave trade, which now supplied almost all manual labor, was weakening.  Rome’s slave trade had been fueled by war, but now that the Romans were unable to conquer more territory, they had no prisoners to send home.  The empire had become too big for its former budget to cover the costs of maintenance, but with the loss of new revenue, there was no new budget to be had.  The additional costs of providing for the holiday circuses and paying for the building and upkeep of such edifices as the Emperor Domitian’s palace, which occupied the entire Palatine Hill, added even further strain to the government treasury.  Rome began to go into debt.

.

Military standards began to decline as well.  Manning all borders of the empire was a herculean venture that the empire could no longer afford.  With borders sometimes nearly a thousand miles away and no new land available for army pensions, citizens had little incentive to join the army.  Instead of the increase in recruits that would be necessary for continued upkeep of defenses, the Roman army was actually losing people.  As a result, mercenaries soon made up the main bulk of the army.  These men had no real loyalty to Rome, only to money.  Rome’s debt skyrocketed.  Less money was allocated to pay for weapons and armor.  Rome’s defense force was rapidly weakening, losing all of the qualities that had made it powerful.
.

Civil unrest also grew due to overexpansion and the ever-growing list of problems it created.  During the years during and immediately before Rome’s peak, Roman armies had been able to squash rebellions of up to 70,000 people.  However, as military standards went downhill, the army had a harder time putting down uprisings, and as this fact grew ever more apparent, rebels began taking more risks, drawing the army out and stretching it to its very limits.  People were more inclined to join uprisings as well; government debt had caused myriads of new taxes to be imposed and meant less public entertainment.  As hatred for the ruling classes grew, the government’s command slipped.  Rome was losing control.
.

Disease also helped stir up civil unrest and weakened military defense, worsening the effects of overexpansion.  Evidence of the bubonic plague and malaria along with other illnesses has been found in Roman remains.  Sickness meant the army lost significant numbers of soldiers and became even more ineffective than ever.  Outbreaks of disease also were probably seen as omens of what to come or as the gods’ judgment on the current government.  Many upper class citizens made their dislike for the common folk abundantly clear; plebeians could and did lie dying in the streets without any sort of government aid or even a decent burial.  Public resentment toward the upper classes probably increased greatly.
When outside forces such as the Visigoths and Huns arrived, Rome must have seemed easy pickings.  Constant attacks along the border wore down the already weakened army.  Roman generals often fought each other for control as they set themselves up as regional rulers, harbingers of Rome’s impending doom.  There was also little civilian support for the Roman rulers, and many villages joined the outside forces in bringing down the Roman government.
.

Rome’s doom was brought about by a combination of many factors, which weakened the internal structure so badly that when invaders arrived, they faced little or no opposition; in its heyday, there is little possibility that the Roman army would not have been able to utterly destroy these assailants.  Although the empire’s downfall was caused by many factors, it was precipitated by overexpansion, whose various effects multiplied and combined with outside problems to bring once-mighty Rome to its knees.

Outside Reading List

Posted in Uncategorized on August 13, 2008 by John Murnane

Each student must read one of the following (first come first serve; no two students in a given class period are allowed to present on the same book–email me your choice please). Most of these titles are on reserve at the library. You are required to make a 5-10 minute presentation on the book you’ve read, given in class on your scheduled day. Powerpoint or short film required. Think of this as a way of sharing information with your classmates; because this is a survey of world history, there are many interesting topics we must cover relatively quickly; the out-side readings give you a chance to study areas in depth and the presentations give the class a chance to share in this experience to some extent. A second benefit is that these presentations give you an opportunity to develop public speaking skills–an important skill no matter what you do later on in life. There is a blog assignment that goes along with this (click here). Leave a comment to this blog re: your choice; first come, first serve. Thanks.

I. After winter break:

  1. Ashe, Geoffrey. Gandhi.
  2. Aczel, Riddle of the Compass. (Erica)
  3. Stewart Allen, The Devil’s Cup. (Athena and Kursten)
  4. Balfour, Sebastian. Castro: Profiles in Power
  5. David Bodanis, E=MC2 (click here)(William M)
  6. Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin.
  7. Alfred Crosby, Ecological Imperialism.
  8. Henrich Jacob, Six Thousand Years of Bread.(A period/Kaite Z.)
  9. Mark Kurlansky, Salt. (Andrew)
  10. John Keegan, History of Warfare.
  11. William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples.
  12. William McNeill, The Human Web (click here)
  13. Menzies, Gavin. 1421: The Year China Discovered the Americas.
  14. Giles Milton, Nathaniel’s Nutmeg.
  15. Gately, Iain, Tabacco.
  16. Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox.
  17. Hans Zinsser, Rats, Lice and History.
  18. Larry Zuckerman, The Potato. Catherine
  19. Peter Bernstein, The Power of Gold .
  20. Mark Boren, Student Resistance. (Claire)
  21. Norman Cantor, In the Wake of the Plague. (Sally)
  22. David Courtwright, Force of Habit.
  23. Jeanette Farrell, Invisible Enemies, ( Emily D.)
  24. Niall Ferguson, The Cash Nexus.
  25. Barbara Freese, Coal.
  26. Mark Kurlansky, Cod. (Madeline)
  27. Mark Kurlansky, 1968 : The Year That Rocked the World. (Nia)
  28. Victor Hanson, Carnage and Culture.
  29. Mark Pendergrast, Uncommon Grounds.
  30. Dava Sobol, Longitude.
  31. J. George, The Crest of the Peacock.
  32. Bhutto, Benizar,  Autobiography of Benizar Bhutto
  33. Brown, Archie. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin.
  34. Chang, Jung, The Unknown Story: Mao.
  35. Duiker, William. Ho Chi Minh.
  36. Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence.
  37. Herbert, Bix. Hirohito.
  38. Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost (Juliana)
  39. Isaacson, Walter. Einstein.
  40. Isaacson, Walter. Kissinger. (Kiana)
  41. Martinez, Tomas. Santa Evita.
  42. kidelsky, Robert. John Maynard Keynes.
  43. Weatherford, Jack. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.
  44. Buruma, Ian. Inventing Japan, 1853-1964.
  45. Elkins, Caroline. Imperial Reckoning.
  46. Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy.(Kiana)
  47. Shlaim, Avi. War and Peace in the Middle East.
  48. Yergin, Daniel. The Prize.


I will explain this assignment in more detail in class. However, I strongly urge you to decide which book you want to read very quickly and plan accordingly–it is your responsibility to complete assignments on time (particularly in the case of presentations, where the whole class is expecting to hear from you on a scheduled day).

The Vietnam War in Global Perspective

Posted in Uncategorized on July 23, 2008 by John Murnane

The Cold War lens distorted American and Soviet views of history. Here is an example:

Puppets and History?

Vietnam

DBQ Rubric

Posted in Uncategorized on July 13, 2008 by John Murnane

US-China Relations

Posted in Uncategorized on July 2, 2008 by John Murnane

China and the United States: On a Collision Course? 

 

Jesse Zaitchik 

A cursory view of historical and current events might lead one to believe that the future of U.S.- China relations is rosy. A more critical, and informed view of these same facts, however, might lead an astute observer of U.S.- China relations to have a more pessimistic view of the future. The U.S and China have always had differences in their philosophical views and foreign policy, and they no longer have the common enemy of the USSR. Also, the Chinese economy is growing faster then any other, causing them to be less reliant on their economic connection with the U.S. Since President Nixon opened the door for renewed U.S.-China diplomacy, Americans have assumed that virtually all is well between the two countries. We assumed that Chinese needed us so much that they would never risk severing ties with the U.S. There are signs that we have misread Chinese intentions historically, are turning a blind eye to current signs of trouble, and will pay in the future for our naivete.

For centuries, China was the most powerful nation in the Far East. Long before Europeans made contact with China, China was the predominant economic and cultural power in the region. Before the late 1700’s, China had little contact with the West. As European nations pushed for more trade, China resisted the impact of foreigners, both culturally and economically. Because of China’s great natural resources, Western merchants and diplomats pressed the issue and tried to open trade. They realized that the only way that they could succeed in fully opening potential markets was to work at changing traditional Chinese trade laws and customs. It was not until the international narcotics trade flourished that the impediments to trade between the West and China diminished. The Opium War signaled an end to Chinese isolationism, as the British forced open Chinese markets to trade. What is equally important, however, is that the Treaty of Nanking (1842) and several subsequent treaties, were viewed as disgraceful by the Chinese. The Treaty of Nanking, which gave the British the island of Hong Kong as a colony and forced the Chinese to open five “treaty ports” for trade which became foreign settlements, brought closure to the Opium War. It was a treaty that clearly benefited Britain at the expense of the Chinese. According to the Chinese, it served as the beginning of a 100-year period of “unequal treaties” or the “century of dishonor.”

The Treaty of Wangshia, formed in 1844, is an example of a subsequent “unequal” treaty. Following China’s defeat in the Opium War, China was too weak to handle other western demands. The U.S. took advantage of the weakness of China by demanding that it should receive the same trading rights as the British and also that they should receive any privileges granted to other countries in the future. This granted the U.S. “favored nation status.” China referred to this demand of the U.S. as “jackal diplomacy,” expressing its belief that the U.S. was acting like a jackal, which feeds on the carrion after another animal makes a kill.

Another concession forced upon China by the West was that it must allow Christian missionaries to “spread the gospel.” Both Catholic and Protestant missionaries fought a “holy war’ against the “pagan” (i.e., non-Christian) religions of China. Eventually, Christianity seemed to be just another form of imperialism to many Chinese. In 1900, the Boxer Rebellion began. The Boxers were a “secret society” which encouraged attacks on foreign diplomats, missionaries and merchants. In June 1900, they killed the German Minister and then laid siege to a foreign settlement in Beijing. The Chinese government did not aid them and they were eventually squashed by an international army that included American Marines. Although the Boxers were a small group, their rebellion led to even greater sanctions by the west on China. China had to pay money and had to allow more foreign troops to be stationed on its soil. In the years leading up to World War I, then, a clear pattern of western imperialism and belittling of Chinese culture had emerged.

World War I caused a period of disarray, not only in Europe, but also in the Far East. China had to deal with its own internal struggles as well as resisting Japanese attempts to increase its imperialism in China. When Yuan Shih-k’ai died in 1916, it created a tremendous internal conflict. His death led to the collapse of the central government in China. The “warlords,” regional militarists, took over the provinces with their private armies. The “warlords,” however, were only concerned with their own interests. They taxed heavily and even received bribes from foreign countries. Simultaneously, the Chinese were fighting off the Japanese. The U.S. sided with the Chinese to help remove Japanese influence from China and prevent them from increasing its imperialism. Although, the two countries were allies during the war, it was after the war when Wilson formed the League of Nations that there was hope for the Chinese that the U.S. policy of imperialism would change. The League of Nations was formed on the premise that open economic competition would end the need for war and imperialism. Theoretically, Wilson believed that this “open door” policy would be good both for the West, which would continue to prosper, and to the developing countries who could improve their economies by selling goods on the open market. China’s hopes were dashed, however, when Wilson agreed to allow Japan into the League of Nations and he conceded control of Shantung province to them. China felt betrayed by this agreement, and it was in 1919 that the May 4th Movement began. This was a group of students who protested the U.S. Japan agreement. The May 4th Movement was the first anti-imperialist movement in modern China.

Shortly after the Russian Revolution, Chinese Communism began to take hold. China was clearly a country ripe for such ideas, and a growing Communist influence was growing. Chiang Kai-shek, however, was an ardent anti-Communist and he managed to take control of the government by 1925. He did not receive much aid or support from the U.S. at this time and, in fact, was initially supported by the Soviets. At the same time, Japan had been rising as a major power in the region since the end of the 18th century. By the late 1920’s, Japan was beginning to impose its will regarding Chinese politics. In 1931, the Japanese drove the Chinese out of the provinces in northeast China. The U.S., deep in an economic depression, did nothing. Until 1938, the U.S. would do nothing to help China except express its regret.

As World War II loomed, however, it became clear to the U.S. that it was in their interest to support Chiang and the Chinese in their struggle against Japan, who was allied with Germany and Italy. In 1937, Roosevelt finally went public with the U.S. position that it was important that China hold off Japanese aggression. The U.S. went all out to support Chiang, but did so in exchange for Chiang’s allegiance to the U.S. Chiang was still coping with internal struggles against the Communists. By 1944, Roosevelt knew he had to bring unity between the factions within China so that unified China could fight off Japan. He hoped that this unity would last after the war and that a Chinese Civil War could be avoided. U.S. support of Chiang, however, would not be forgotten by the Chinese Communists.

By the time of the “Cultural Revolution” and the victory of Mao over Chaing, almost two hundred years of history had made it nearly inevitable that the U.S. would be demonized. From President Tyler to President Truman, from the Treaty of Nanking to the Yalta Conference, the U.S. had only supported China when it was in its self-interest. U.S. imperialism had given way to U.S. leverage to use China against Japan, but China was never treated as an equal partner. After the Cultural Revolution, China again isolated itself and Mao did whatever he could to violently erase all the vestiges of Western imperialism and influence. The U.S. and China would not reestablish any diplomatic or economic relations until Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.

However, much was occurring in the world during this time that had an impact in the short-term and long-term relationship between the two countries. After World War II, it became clearer to American politicians and to the American people that we had “lost” China. In August, 1949, the Truman administration issued the “China White Paper,” which presented the view that Chiang had brought defeat upon himself due to incompetence and corruption. A “Cover Letter” attached to the report (written by Dean Acheson, Secretary of State) ironically denounced the Chinese Communists for abandoning their “Chinese heritage” by announcing their “subservience to a foreign power, Russia.” Although it was true that Mao had said that he favored socialism over imperialism, the Cover Letter did not note that China had been, in essence, subservient to the West for over a century. Also, the U.S. made overtures to Japan hoping that they could turn Japan into a pro-American base in the Far East. Mao called the American policy toward China a “fraud” and in 1950 he signed a Friendship Treaty with Joseph Stalin and Russia. Although many American citizens were shocked by the reversal of fortune in China (thinking that China wanted to move toward a more Western style of life), the Chinese reaction to the “hypocrisy” of the U.S. policies toward China should not have been a surprise. By the end of 1950, the U.S. and China would be at war in Korea. In the Korean Conflict, the U.S. went to war to protect its interests in South Korea, Nationalist China, and French Indochina. Americans were told to be frightened of Communism, both overseas and at home. Senator Joseph McCarthy began his notorious attack on Communism in the U.S. by “rooting out” Communists who worked for the U.S. State Department. As the “Red Scare” escalated at home, so too did the conflict over Korea. Even after the end of the conflict, the Eisenhower administration chose to keep tensions high with China. His administration continued to provide support to Chiang and Taiwan and it started SEATO, a group of anti-Communist countries that bordered China. The administration also maintained a trade embargo against China. Eisenhower hoped to isolate China from all Western contact and, therefore, rely on the Soviet Union for economic help. Eisenhower believed that Russia was not equipped to provide the kind of help that China needed and that China would eventually get frustrated and return to the U.S. for help. The U.S. continued this anti-China policy throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s with restrictions in travel to China, the training of anti-Chinese terrorists, and CIA-sponsored raids against China.

Despite the aggressive nature of U.S. policy toward China, the bond between

China and the Soviet Union showed more and more stress over time. It became clear that the Chinese model of Communism was very different than the Soviet version, and Mao did not like that fact that China was treated as a poor cousin by the Soviets. At the same time that Chinese-Soviet relations showed strain, the U.S. and the Soviets were improving their relations gradually. The U.S. and Russia were at least attempting to come to agreements about arms control and they began to work together to control the growth of Chinese nuclear capability. An undercurrent of mutual fear existed between the Soviets and China, in large part due to their proximity. By the time of John F. Kennedy’s death in 1963, his administration believed that the Chinese-Soviet “monolith” had split apart. Then came the War in Vietnam.When many factors indicated that the U.S. and China might begin a dialogue, the conflict in Vietnam erupted. The French had occupied Vietnam for over a decade when the U.S. began giving them aid. The Chinese were supporting the rebel troops of Ho Chi Minh. In 1954, the French troops lost a major battle to the rebels. The Geneva Conference of 1954 split Vietnam in half, giving the North to the Communists and the South to the pro-French Vietnamese. There were elections scheduled for 1956 that were supposed to unify the country once again, but Ho Chi Minh did not support this plan, who believed that he should control all of Vietnam. The U.S. was trying to strengthen an anti-Communist government in South Vietnam. The U.S. began to espouse the “domino theory” of Communism, which stated that Communism would move from one vulnerable spot to an adjacent one on the globe and gradually gain power.

Keeping Vietnam, then, became very important. American involvement grew over the 1950’s and by the time Kennedy became President in 1961, Americans began to go to Vietnam as “advisors.” Ho Chi Minh began to be seen as a villain by Americans and the U.S. eventually sent thousands of troops to save South Vietnam from Communism. President Johnson escalated American involvement at least in part because he believed that “the shadow of China” was looming over Asia.

It was very ironic that the President who finally opened the door to U.S.-China diplomacy was Richard Nixon. He had become famous as ardent anti-Communist and, later, he supported that war in Vietnam. But by the time he became President, he understood that the relationship with China was a complicated one and that it was important to include China in diplomatic debate in the future. By 1972, Nixon had decided to deescalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam and to reestablish diplomatic relations with China. The increasing tensions between China and Russia helped move China toward discussion with Nixon and the U.S. After twenty years of blatant hostility, the U.S. and China began talking again about “peaceful coexistence.”

Over the course of the next two decades, the U.S. and China became involved in several joint ventures and appeared to be well on the way to peaceful coexistence. Nixon’s goal of “normalized relationships” between China and the U.S. seemed attainable. The illusion of shared values and goals was created because over most of these years the U.S. and China needed each other for various reasons. China needed the U.S. in order to improve its economy, to provide needed technology, and to buffer tensions with Russia. The U.S. was well aware of the huge potential market that China represented and also welcomed an ally (albeit a Communist one) against the Soviets on many issues.

It may be naive, however, to only look at the past twenty years of relatively stable and friendly relations to come to the conclusion that the U.S. and China will avoid major conflict. Over recent years there is evidence that many of the same tensions and differences between the two countries have never truly disappeared.

After China took over Hong Kong in 1996 they began to replace the democratically elected legislature with one that they have appointed. Also, China gave the police the power to ban demonstrations and they suspended several labor laws. China made it abundantly clear that they wanted to gain control of Taiwan, as well, and made inroads in Taiwan’s economy. China has given support to several enemies of the U.S. in recent years, including Iran, Sudan, and Nigeria. China has developed its nuclear arsenal over the past decades. Chinese officials have made statements that reflect the belief that the U.S. is the “enemy” of the Chinese people. By these actions, China has demonstrated that their goals and values do not reflect the goals and values of the U.S. As shown, the U.S. has already been engaged in three armed conflicts in order to prevent any domination of Asia by a superpower.

The U.S. has historically misread the intentions and aspirations of China. At times, the U.S. has wrongly believed that China wished to become Westernized and at other times the U.S. has overreacted to Chinese policy because of its phobia about Communism. It appears that the U.S. is currently misreading signs that China has divergent goals from its own. One would hope that as China makes aggressive economic and military moves in the region, the U.S. will not be blind to the potential for future political and military conflict

 

 

DBQ, Ronaldshay and Imperialism

Posted in Uncategorized on June 30, 2008 by John Murnane

The European Misconception On The Westernization Of The East: The Boxer Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Belgian Congo, Urabi Revolt, & Hut Tax War.*

Matthew Echelman
Dr. John Murnane
AP World History Period D
March 4, 2008

Lord Ronaldshay’s remarks “that contact with Western thought and Western ideals has exercised a revivifying influence upon all the races of the East” exemplifies a familiar European perspective that is mostly erroneous. While it is undeniable that there have been some benefits to direct European presence in the latter half of 1763 to 1914, Lord Ronaldshay’s excerpt does not recognize the mistreatment of most native populaces. Initially, it is perhaps valid to say that European westernization was economically and culturally constructive, as it helped to modernize Eastern regions like Japan and India, centuries behind in technology. Nonetheless, this assistance erupted into an ultra-competitive race for power amongst the primary European world leaders. In turn, these subjugated Easterners were then repressed and their interests ignored, hence conflicting with Lord Ronaldshay’s testimonial. Upon looking at the Boxer Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Belgian Congo, Urabi Revolt, and Hut Tax War, it is apparent that westernization was in most cases destructive and that he is simply wrongheaded in his outlook. The Chinese response to this exploitation, a policy the Westerners called “carving up the Chinese melon,” was the Boxer Rebellion. Similarly, in India and Sierra Leone, this same corrupt European governance occurred, though solely British, and was combated with the Sepoy Mutiny and Hut Tax War. Around the same time, problems with westernization were also arising in the Belgian Congo under King Leopold II, and all over Egypt with the Urabi Revolt. Thus, Lord Ronaldshay’s statements are faulty, seeing that there has not always been a “revivifying influence [with]…those that have come into the sharpest contact with [the West].”

As European westernization began, many Eastern regions “could see no flaw in the civilization or culture of the West” (Document 1), so therefore either openly consolidated with their ethical standards, like India, or had it imposed, as seen in Japan. With the introduction of railroads and educational facilities, European intervention greatly improved India’s public transportation system and achieved higher levels of literacy. However, due to the partitioning of India’s vast population over an immense region, these advancements had little effect. Whereas traditional unifying principles were crucial to Eastern morality, these innovative Western ideals stressed “the enfranchisement of the individual, the substitution of the right of private judgment in place of traditional authority, [and] the exaltation of duty over custom” (Document 1). Consequentially, Japan opted out of “the adoration of all things Western, [and to return to their]…time-honored ways and customs” (Document 1). Despite their original defiance, when Matthew Calbraith Perry disembarked on Japanese soil in 1854 and insisted that it reopen its borders, Japan willingly obliged. Rather than risking a fate alike China’s at the close of the Opium Wars, the Japanese thought submission and adaptation a more sensible alternative. Surprisingly, the outcome was infrastructural and technological growth at an outstanding pace, something not seen again until Germany’s recovery from World War I. This being the case, Lord Ronaldshay’s accounts are undoubtedly factual, since European westernization did help the East move away from its industrial and scientific standstill. Though these productive aspects were definitely witnessed, the subsequent European occupation resulted with Easterners “suffering from the oppression of the Western peoples” (Document 2). For this reason, all of Lord Ronaldshay’s supposed glorifications of the West are contradicted by European’s ethnocentric and hostile actions towards the East.

While China had once remained separate from Western trading networks, as soon as its precious goods gained awareness, the dominant European nations began claiming exclusive trading rights to certain parts of China. Shortly thereafter, China had been divided into Europeanized “spheres of influence,” even involving allegations to owning various Chinese districts. Furthermore, as this foreign influence continued to expand, and gradually gain control of all China’s exports, the Chinese economy fell into steady decline. Also, more cultural boundaries were crossed as the influx of Christian missionaries began finding converts for their alien religion. As retaliation, in 1899, a “movement against foreigners [developed called the Boxer Rebellion], and a tendency towards [instilling] the ideals of…‘the Chinese’” (Document 3). Unfortunately for China, the disturbance was suppressed by 1901, and the Europeans humiliated the imperial government with the partial terms of the Boxer Protocol. In relation to Lord Ronaldshay’s biased thinking that the West liberates the East, this progression in China emulates this European fallacy.
Situated also in Asia, India was another region to experience many years of chauvinistic European cruelty, as it instilled a corrupt leadership centered on racial discrimination. Although many countries had previously been involved in the Indian peninsula, Britain ultimately took charge. Following decades of British rule and increasing authority, the Indian government had steadily eroded into almost nothing. Completely disregarding Indian tradition and culture, by 1856, the British had abolished widow’s self-immolation and child marriages. Additionally, British regulations on agricultural crops, limited textile produce, and heavy taxation on the working class, rapidly diminished India’s financial prosperity. Before long, “everything English was [perceived as] good [and]…everything not English was to be viewed with suspicion” (Document 1). As these British restrictions persisted, Indians became enraged to the point of violence. Finally, in 1857, the Sepoy Mutiny transpired after legislature was passed requiring that innate Indian soldiers serve overseas, thereby losing caste. Despite an abrupt defeat, India’s message of resentment had been publicized to the world. In doing so, India overcame a stepping stone in toppling the British East India Company, a feat that would later lead to its independence. Hence, Lord Ronaldshay’s comments are once again proven to be inaccurate, since all this Indian bitterness for the British is a consequence of westernization.

Such relations did not improve whatsoever moving into Western Africa, as in Sierra Leone, endless European restrictions allowed its residents almost no liberties. In spite of the locals reluctantly obeying these biased laws, the Europeans exacerbated their burden as they then went on to “ill-use the natives” (Document 4). In order to continue funding the British administration, Britain decreed in 1893 that the people of Sierra Leone should be taxed on the size of their huts. This announcement came following other confinements like not being able to “keep slaves, nor have woman palaver, nor pledge human beings” (Document 4), so the Sierra Leoneans were outraged. With several tribal villages as military support, Bai Bureh, an indigenous born strategist, refused to recognize the hut tax Britain had enforced, and led his faction in an uprising against the British colonialists, known as the Hut Tax War of 1898. By the end of this quarrel, the Sierra Leoneans were victorious, and although Bai Bureh was eventually captured and exiled, Sierra Leon endured subsequent harmony. While this aggression surprisingly did conclude peacefully, the European’s strict policies brought havoc to Sierra Leone, a Western ruthlessness that hardly matches the “revivifying” assertion of Lord Ronaldshay.

Under King Leopold II, this level of brutality only was magnified in the Belgian Congo, where European management of the local population was so severe and inhumane that public pressure and diplomatic maneuvers eventually forced it to halt. Parallel to what had happened in China, the prominent European sovereign states gathered at the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to regulate European colonization and trade in Africa. At the close of this meeting, Belgium had been ceded the Belgian Congo and thereby permitted King Leopold II to reign the land grant freely as his personal province. Immediately, in contrast to what Lord Ronaldshay might presume, Leopold II executed a gruesome rubber and ivory industry involving forced slave labor and excessive slaughtering of the natives. Furthermore, through constructing one-sided treaties, with his interests in favor, and in a language illegible to the indigenous inhabitants, Leopold II attained massive territorial additions to his domain. Clearly, this European callousness in the Belgian Congo conflicts with what Lord Ronaldshay dubs the Western revival of the East.
Though there was no radical abuse of human rights as seen in the Belgian Congo, Egypt was also undergoing political unrest while under European rule. In correspondence with the rise of British and French influence in Egyptian administration, economical and monetary difficulties started to surface. By 1879, the British bankers conducting monetary affairs had thrust Egypt into extreme financial debt. Also, in other employment fields of Egyptian business commerce, Europeans had monopolized the higher ranks, preventing the civil advancement of Egyptians, while heavily taxing the peasants. As a result, tensions over these unfair circumstances turned to bloodshed as the Egyptians rioted against their European management in the Urabi Revolt, and seized control. However, command over Egypt would later fall to the British once again, as its independence was not until 1922. Therefore, the westernization of Egypt corrupts what had been a fairly stable administration, achieving the absolute opposite of what Lord Ronaldshay declares truthful.

Thus, in correlation with all these negating instances concerning Lord Ronaldshay’s thesis that the West “has exercised a revivifying influence upon…the East,” it is safe to say that he was mostly incorrect. Of course, there are obviously advantages to adopting Westernization, like the technological developments of James Watts’ steam engine and Thomas Edison’s light bulb. Nonetheless, when judged against European’s corrupt and manipulative governing, there is no comparison. Part of his initial documentation stated that “what may be the final outcome of the collision [between the East and West]…it is impossible to foretell,” a logical assumption that should not have been preceded any further. However amiss he may have been from the facts, his outlook was seemingly shared with many Westerners alike, that without whom, the world would not be governed the way it is.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* While the provided documents do convey plenty of insight into the accounts of those of a wealthier status, such as a “prominent Indian, S. Banerjea” (Document 1), “Chinese leader Dr. Sun Yat-sen” (Document 2), and “an Englishman” (Document 3), more documents should be offered with the perspective of the working and poorer classes. This alteration is a necessity, since these more privileged persons are granted more autonomy, and thus might be biased in their reasoning. (Not enough information is given to infer the hierarchal standing of the individual of Document 4) Additionally, most of the documents are dated outside the time constraints of the question or are very close to end, such as in “1925” (Document 1), “1924” (Document 2), and “1906” (Document 3), meaning that other historical events during this superfluous period may influence the documentation. (Not enough information is given to infer the date of Document 4) Thus, documents dating from the remainder of the chronological restraints, sometime during 1839-1914, should be added.

http://worldhistoryap.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2023183%3ABlogPost%3A641

Miles Davis

Posted in Uncategorized on June 29, 2008 by John Murnane

AP Exam and Venn Diagram

Posted in Uncategorized on June 29, 2008 by John Murnane

Evaluation of CNN’s Millennium Papers RUBRIC

Posted in Uncategorized on June 29, 2008 by John Murnane

Evaluation of CNN’s Millennium Papers

Logical Structure?

Clear thesis?

Road map?

Topic sentences?

Film series identified ?

Balance treatment –critics say such and such etc.?

Pink Elephants re: Historical Evidence? Most of them?

Something re: the Japan section in “The Century of the Sword?”

Something re: Australia in “The Century of the Axe?”

Spread of Islam?

Crusades?

Feudalism in Europe and/or Japan?

Other?

Smooth (Miles Davis)?

Active voice ?

Grammar?

Afro-Eurasian Trade Network Papers RUBRIC

Posted in Uncategorized on June 29, 2008 by John Murnane

Afro-Eurasian Trade Network Papers

Logical  Structure?

Clear thesis?
Road map?
Topic sentences?
Name of networks match data?
Balance treatment of time period (1000 to 1850)?

Pink Elephants? Most of them?

Buddhism?
Black Death?
Spread of Islam?
Age-grade System Destroyed (and or rise of Mali Songhay, Ghana Empires)?
Atlantic Slave Trade?
Columbus?
Conflicts (at least two in addition to the Opium Wars)?

Smooth (Miles Davis)?
Active voice ?
Grammar?