The first reason the Dark Ages were not as dark as the name claims for them to be, is because during the Dark Ages there were tons of advances in education. The information in Doc A that claims “Europe suffered a decline in commerce and manufacturing, in education, in literature and the arts and in almost all that makes possible a high civilization.” is completely biased. And that the Dark Ages “Did not support learning” (Background Information) which is completely untrue. During the Dark Ages, there were still people learning and teaching. One of them being a monk named Richer, who “went to the town of Chartres, in what is today France, to study.”
One example, is from document A which is that Europe was still in control and there was still laws. "No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's fee. "Another example, from document C is that Europe still had plenty of food and population grew. "Europe developed and prospered. " A final example, is that Europe was not in a "dark age" is from document E which talks about how universities and how church schools were formed. "
Moreover, guild controlled much of the industries and because with their licensure policies, the establishing of factories became difficult and limited. In trade perspective, local German textile industry faced competition when the allies lifted the Continental System that blocked the entry of cheap British textile. A depression also followed in 1817 when agricultural production dropped significantly. But the most significant challenge towards Germany’s industrial revolution was its political set up.
In historian Jared Diamond’s book and film Guns, Germs and Steel, he attempts to explain why some parts of the world are more economically sound than others. The facts Diamond delves into extend back thousands of years. Some civilizations had what Diamond referred to as “geographic luck”, meaning that some lands were situated in an environment better suited for agriculture and other resource gathering. Other civilizations were also unable to domesticate animals that would have made farming and living on the land easier. Domesticated animals provided milk, fur, meat, as well as the ability to feed off leftover crop beds and create dung to fertilize future crops.
Since there’s suddenly an abundance of food, not everyone has to spend all day generating food for their survival. Many people took advantage of this free time by dedicating themselves to other pursuits such as pottery, weaving, tool-making, and carpentry. The supply of extra tools and trade increased the scale of trade between people. Merchants emerged to facilitate the exchange of goods. These people would become very wealthy and powerful.
Jared Diamond Claim/Counterclaim Essay By: Trent Dickerson I have very mixed opinions on the statements of Jared Diamond and the Neolithic revolution. A way that I think it is bad is because it could have possibly caused overpopulation. A reason that I think it is good is because it allowed us to settle down in one place and have less people die from starvation. Another reason it was good was because it created the invention of agriculture.
Edmund S. Morgan believes the Virginia colony was a disaster due to the lazy and stubborn minded English settlers. Morgan does not view Virginia as a successful colony. The English had an interesting relationship with the Indians during their century-long settlement battle. When first arriving the English had announced their guardianship toward the Indians. Their civilized relationship allowed the English to buy corn from the Indians.
In the Middle Ages, they had a strange way of calling their time period a perfect world. They lived in a time where Christianity was spreading the globe, art and music started to expand and Europe was becoming the strongest nation. Everything seemed to be right except for how people were living life. It was unfair the way everyone was separated into a class and all you did wrong was just be born into the wrong family. In the Middle Ages, there was an indefinite structure in society.
Despite the fact that British rule in India during the Imperial period was extremely negative for the Indian people, it ultimately created an improved Indian nation. The British forced the idea of monoculture, were racist, created unfair trade and economic distress. However, they did provide an education system, improved human rights, promoted peace and created a more modern society for the Indian nation. The British rule began in the early 1600’s.
Dai Sijie uses these aspects and explains the cultural revolution, Mao’s life, and his own to stress the power of knowledge. The cultural revolution was an event in the 1960’s and 70’s encouraging the lower peasant class and bringing down the upper class(Anderson 1). The power of the knowledge of peasants is powerful. It is different from book smarts, but is just as useful.
It didn’t help that the slave duty was at a whopping twenty percent. This only brought the farmers into more debt with which their tobacco could not render enough profit to get them out of. According to William Allason, the poor farmers were dedicated to lowering the duty on slaves as low as possible as opposed to shutting down the slave trade altogether, for the farmers needed hands to cultivate their product. (Holton, 71) Britain sided with the gentry’s
The individuals from the Virginia Colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony came to the new country for both very similar reasons, the main reason being so that they could have freedom within their colonies and to be free from the church and practice their own religion. The puritans and the pilgrims from the Netherlands but they wanted their children to keep the English traditions. The fishing and hunting conditions were not good in this area. Some colonists traded American Indians corn for beaver fur.
And these economies almost split our country in two. The varying economies between the North and South caused tension in the United States, which caused the Civil War and then for North to win. The South’s economy was based on agriculture. This meant the South focused on farms and plantations and had very few factories. The South grew many crops such as tobacco, rice, and indigo.
In the late fourth century the Western Roman Empire was collapsing, sending Europe into a ‘Dark Age’. Historians have blamed the collapse on many different factors. Henri Pirenne will argue in his book Mohammed and Charlemagne that this was due to a decline in trade and a decline in intellectual life due to the rising power in the Middle East. Michael McCormick will argue in his article, “New Light on the Dark Ages,” that the fall of the Roman Empire was not due to the decline of trade but that trade was vibrant and intellectual life did not decline. . Pirenne begins by disclaiming the theory that the fall of Rome was not due to the Germanic invasions.
This Neolithic Revolution was needed for the progression of human life. Changing to an agrarian based lifestyle created a larger population, an increase in food production, and a stable living environment. Humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to an agrarian based settlement around 1000-9000 B.C. A sufficient amount of water is all it takes to sustain the hunter-gatherer way of life (McGee, 1895, 351).