Imperialism as a Nationalistic Phenomenon

Hayes proclaims that colonialism united countries within themselves by giving them a common goal of power. As examples, he references several physically small yet powerful European countries that colonized many regions in order to raise their homeland's power and status in the world. It pressed a reaction that lead to the desire to maintain or recover national prestige. 

Colonialism: The Age of Empire (by Eric J. Hobsbawn)

In "The Age of Empire", Eric J. Hobsbawn comments on colonialism and its relations to economy. He describes that nations colonize other countries as a means to show their power and as a way to expand their own economic success. Colonialism is an indirect way for countries to compete with each other. It's a race to expand more; to have more land to gain wealth. This idea of spreading to gain and show power coincides with the actions of the Islamic nations and Napoleon. 

Technology and Colonialism

According to Headrick, colonialism was a random product of the innovations that came during the Industrial Revolution. These innovations made it easier and economically sounder for nations to conquer. Countries weren't necessarily motivated to expand, but the new technology from the Industrial Revolution caused the nations to expand. 

Innovations like the compound engine popularized steam ships and were used for overseas trade. Before only sailing ships were used. 

The breechloader and machine gun made colonialism easier because it was safer because countries could kill the inhabitants if need be. 

Technology did play a role in colonialism, but it was not the only factor, and probably not the largest factor from country to country. 

Gender and Empire

European women had a complex, varied, and often contradictory relationship to the African and Asian territories controlled by the European powers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Women in colonial societies had slightly elevated positions that allowed them to attack the inequalities of race, politics, and economy. The new social class of a superior race and inferior sex within shows a relation to the rising middle class of the Industrial Revolution. They both had a respectable position in society, but were not superior and could never attain the highest status.

Industrial Revolution

The reading suggested connections between the French and industrial revolutions, but did not really elaborate further. It also connected it to the Enlightenment, which makes a lot of sense. The Enlightenment brought about a new age of scientific thinking, which of course would have spurred the invention of new machinery and new uses for natural resources, such as coal and iron, so that greater production could happen. The French revolution also would have helped show how the old ways of thinking were not as relevant, and support the common business man having power. After the French revolution, the people did not have to pay the government onscene taxes, and so wold have been able to make more money, which would have allowed them to expand their businesses, increasing production.
The Industrial Revolution and slave trade were very strongly connected. It is even possible that the two depended on each other, because increased manufacturing required more workers to pick the cotton, mine the coal and mine the iron, even faster than before. Because of this need, slavery probably looked pretty useful, as slaves could be forced to work very hard, for very long periods of time, and would never be able to quit or leave you, except through death. The Industrial revolution would have created a demand for slaves, and the slave trade would have encouraged people to expand and manufacture more.

Connections with The Industrial Revolution, The Slave Trade, and the French Revolution

The Industrial Revolution had a lot of connections to the French Revolution because it differed so much. The Industrial Revolution aided Britain monumentally it boosted the moral of the country and it provided jobs/opportunities and overall boosted the economy. Where as the French Revolution practically killed the economy, took thousands of lives, and corrupted the French Government. Also the Industrial Revolution created new transportation possibilities, and it made new factories which helped to aid in the creation of new technology.

The Industrial Revolution had to do with the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade because you could say that there was forced labor in both in that you would have needed labor to build those transportation opportunities, and to build and work in the factories. Where as the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade when the slaves were transported to there homes they would be forced to do labor which sometimes had to do with the constructing of buildings or mobiles. Also both were a long grueling process where a lot of pain and suffering was produced, From the Industrial Revolution it took time to build everything and the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade because it took time to come from Africa and then it took time to find their place and job.

The Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, and the African Slave Trade

In both the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, there was a change in meaning of the highest class. Having supreme control, the landowners had the ultimate say in daily life and politics, as did the first and second estates. But as the Industrial Revolution progressed, the wealthy landowners found that they no longer were the most influential, as businessmen grew much more important. In the French Revolution, the change was much more sudden but still similar. The high class was wrenched from power because of growing anger from the lower classes due to inequality. Also, I get the impression that the Industrial Revolution caused a boom in jobs, giving more people opportunities to make their living. Like the French Revolution, this empowers the common man, who in the case of the French Revolution would be the Third Estate. With the new form of society, they were granted an equal chance to make whatever they wanted of themselves.

The African Slave Trade and the Industrial Revolution have less immediately apparent similarities. From my first impression of the Industrial Revolution, it also seems like with a more modernized world, leads to people taking advantage of the labor force. Mahatma Gandhi argued, "Industrialization on a mass scale will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villagers." While not many listened, as evidenced by the world's readiness to embrace industrialization, he had a valid point. Industrialization must have caused those in power to abuse the freedoms of a giant potential working force. The African Slave Trade was also very much about taking advantage of other humans and using them as laborers for financial gain. Although the slave trade is a much more serious example of this, both involve some level of exploitation of the potential of other human beings.

Connecting Industrial Revolution

WRITE a blog post in which you discuss possible connections between what you read and, first, the French Revolution and, second, the African slave trade.

The Industrial Revolution is certainly similar to the French Revolution. During both of these revolutions, society began to shift its view on importance of certain citizens. Before these occurred, the nobles and higher class tended to make all the decisions and have the biggest influence on society. The French Revolution led to a great shift of power in favor of the third estate. The lower working class of people began to have a say in government because they proved that they are worthy and that it is their class that is making the biggest influence in society. During the Industrial Revolution, new inventions led to new jobs for thousands of people. Work in large industries and factories created jobs for people who had never previously worked. Because the lower working class began to work in these factories, they greatly influenced the production of goods. People began to recognize their significance in the economy which led to an increase in power.

The Slave Trade related to the Industrial Revolution in a similar way. As new inventions were being made that encouraged efficiency with the production of goods, the demand for these goods rose. This of course led to an increase of slave demand. Without slavery, there was no good in creating the new inventions, as they would not be put to use. In order for the economy to succeed, there needed to be the people who actually produced the goods in the first place. The Industrial Revolution also modified the type of labor slaves did. For example, before the invention of the cotton gin, slaves would always pick cotton by hand. However, after this invention, some slaves used the cotton gin to do their work, which led to the same amount of cotton being picked by less people in shorter time. Overall, the Industrial Revolution led to an appreciation of the lower, working class, as it promoted new jobs for more people.

Connecting the Industrial Revolution to the French Revolution and the Slave trade

Connections to the French Revolution

The French Revolution allowed the poorer people to have some power and have better jobs. The industrial revolution also improved the job status of many poor people, but mostly in Britain, (although France was one of the top countries benefiting from the industrial revolution). Also, the Industrial revolution was a lot more gradual in terms of change. Another difference is that the french revolution was executed by the third estate against the top two estates, almost like a civil war, while the industrial revolution was not a conflict between people within a country. The social order was also changed in both revolutions. Thew poorest people gained more power and jobs opportunities. Also, the industrial revolution was focused more on unity, while the french revolution broke France apart.

Connections to the African Slave Trade

The Industrial revolution had less in common with the african slave trade than it did with the French Revolution. Both greatly improved the economy where they happened. In Africa, the countries got a lot of money by selling slaves, and the industrial revolution brought in more money for european countries. While the end result for the two are the same, the process is much different.

Connecting Industrialization to Slave Trade and French Rev.

Connections to the French Revolution:

The Industrial Revolution in Europe changed peoples’ way of life. More jobs were available, travel became easier with railroads, and machines could produce goods much faster than humans could. However, not only was people’s way of life changed, but the social order also changed. Though the country as whole suddenly became a lot wealthier, not everyone within the country was wealthy. Owners of big factories found themselves with more money than they had ever had in the past, but the people working for them were poor. However, poor peasants could work hard to come close to the wealthy owners of factories. The Industrial Revolution changed the social order, just as the French Revolution did. The French Revolution provided people who came from the Third Estate with a chance to be powerful (take Napoleon for example). The Industrial Revolution also provided this opportunity. It gave poor people the chance to set about promoting and inventing new ideas, which they could use to gain wealth.

Connections to the African Slave Trade:

The African slave trade was a system of transporting laborers. Because the slave trade was trans-Atlantic, it is a good example of a trend being spread world-wide. Almost everywhere in the world used slaves: Europe, America, even Africa itself. This connects to the Industrial Revolution because that is another example of a trend being spread world-wide. Railroad tracks, and just the idea of industrialization in general spread across the world, even to countries whose leaders swore industrialization was bad, such as India.

Industrial Revolution, French Revolution, and Slave Trade

After reading about the Industrial Revolution, I can see that not all revolutions are destructive to society like the French Revolution. The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain boosted the economy, provided more jobs, and could have brought the entire country together, whereas the French Revolution tore everything apart. As opposed to completely turning society on its head in one swift action, the Industrial Revolution allowed for a more gradual introduction of the lower class into society. The lower class could show their importance without all the violence that there was in France. Also, the Industrial Revolution set an example for other questions, not a warning. Other countries saw that what was going on in Great Britain was a good thing and took steps to mimic them. In the time of the French Revolution, everyone saw that it was bad, and took steps to be unlike it. Though both Revolutions achieved the same thing on the grounds of social class, the Industrial Revolution had a longer lasting positive impact.

The Slave Trade was like the Industrial Revolution in that they both boosted the economies of the countries where they took place. However, the Industrial Revolution was something positive, and the slave trade has since been looked at as something awful that should never be repeated. In the Industrial Revolution, the lower class showed their importance by working in the factories, but the slave trade showed that those who are in lower classes were worthless and could work for nothing. Though they both did good things for the economy, the Industrial Revolution and the slave trade stood for two completely different things. One was about work that was good for the entire country, and the other was about work that was good for a single person at a time.

Connections!

The industrial revolution helped lead Europe as a whole on expanding it's economic prosperity, and shaping it's countries ideals and new systems. Not only did it shape it's economic foundation, but it had a huge affect on it's culture aspect and contributed on making the lower class more important in society. This relates to the French revolution because it's goals were to make the lower class more important, important in a sense where the third party was not only pivotal but in a way where it seemed as if they were making decisions with everyone! The industrial revolution and the french revolution both relate to each other because they both had an outcome of having the lower class more important to society! Their efforts also lead to a reshape of systems that impact Europe and its ideals. Like I said their economic value raised due to its efforts of reshaping its systems.

In my view the Industrial revolution didn't relate with the Atlantic Slave trade due to the fact that the industrial revolution supported machine-based manufacturing instead of the brutality of the Atlantic Slave trade.

History Connections With the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was, first and foremost, a movement towards innovation and new ideas. This movement began in the mid to late eighteenth century and continued for almost two hundred years. All across Europe, railroads were built, coal and iron were mined, and production of goods skyrocketed.  This huge change relates directly to the French Revolution because of their similar characteristics. Both revolutions started small, with whispers and rumors of a better way of life. Next, people took action and made an effort to change their lives. While French revolutionaries worked to overthrow the king and take power into their own hands, people of the Industrial Revolution began doing business on a huge scale in an effort to increase income and technology. They both ended with partial success, accomplishing much but encountering many problems during their struggles. 

The slave trade connects to the Industrial Revolution because slaves were directly related to growing businesses.  Many slaves were forced to work on cotton and other types of plantations, giving their masters free labor and a chance to increase profit without increasing expenses. Slaves were also traded as property, speeding along industrial growth.  

Industrial Revolution

My task is to connect the information I learned about the Industrial Revolution to the French Revolution and the African Slave Trade.

Both the Industrial and French Revolutions had enormous impacts on Europe and the entire world. These were some of the most influential time periods in the modern world and shaped people's views civilians' role in government and economies. The Industrial Revolution came at the tail end of the French Revolution and helped to make Europe the most powerful continent in the world.

The Industrial Revolution probably diminished the trans-atlantic slave trade. Because Europe was producing so many goods, there was not as much of a need for manual labor in the fields for agriculture. The IR diminished agriculture's role in society because of the massive increase in money from exported goods. Agriculture had for thousands of years played a vital role in societies' economies and since the Agricultural Revolution some 7,000 years ago it had been the main money maker.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution essentially sprouted from the French Revolution. The French Revolution brought new ways of thinking into the world and before that the Scientific Revolution brought in new ideas about God and the universe. There were always pushes for scientific and technological advancement, but they were always made by the royalty and high classes of society so they were usually superfluous inventions made for hobbies or weaponry for the military. There hadn’t been any huge movements for making life easier for the lower classes. There had been inventions, but no huge, ongoing improvements. And of course, the lower classes had been too busy working to discover and invent much more than what they stumbled upon by accident. However, once the social boundaries and strict classes were brought down (at least, the idea of social boundaries being brought down was put in before being shut down), it was much easier for the poor farmer to become a wealthy middle-class man. All he needed was a way to be more efficient than all the other poor farmers he was competing with. Thus, the Industrial Revolution would have a driving force behind it. The Industrial revolution was also related to the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The Industrial revolution was all about more efficiency and higher profits, as was the Slave Trade. They both created opportunities to make more money for less work/money, the Slave Trade was just a lot less ethical. Slaves were a huge asset to America’s economy at the time, they held up the plantations for much less money than what paid laborers would have.

Connecting the Industrial Revolution to the French Revolution and the African Slave Trade

The Industrial Revolution can be connected to the French Revolution and the African Slave Trade. The Industrial Revolution connects with the French Revolution because both concerned the social aspects of society as well as expanded their ideas and innovations to other countries. Socially, The Industrial and French Revolutions both gave the lower and middle class ample opportunities to move up in society. Both also spread their ideas and innovations across Europe and the rest of the world. The map on page 531 as well as the table on page 535 illustrate the spread of new technology from the Industrial revolution very clearly. The industrial Revolution and the African Slave Trade can also be connected because both led to booming economy's and a massive gain in wealth. The Industrial Revolution's new innovations spawned more successful markets for coal, and iron which helped the economy prosper; the African American Slave Trade created a large market for slaves which also helped several African Kingdoms become very wealthy.

Industrial Rev: French Rev and Slave Trade

The Industrial Rev (IR) ties to the French Rev (FR) as an social and economic aftershock. From the FR, the world became exposed to a total reversal in social class and new way for people to rise/lower on the social ladder. Like the FR, the IR introduced new ways to climb and rest on the social ladder. to Social status based on profession was a principle that became exaggerated during the IR, where one's workplace totally determined his/her wealth, social status, and domicile. During the FR, there existed the high and low ends of society: aristocracy and peasantry. However, in the IR, the high and low end of society relied on work ethic and profession. Therefore, the idea of meritocracy tossed itself around during the IR; the harder one works and the better job one has, the wealthier and more socially equipped he/she becomes. All of these ideas and principles were introduced by the IR through economics, yet strongly provoked by the FR in the first place.

The Slave trade and the IR share many effects and circumstances with one another. Both economic outbreaks, each one changed major aspects of certain societies for the sake of economics and money. Obviously, the IR introduced new means of machinery and economic methods to increase revenue for a vast amount of industry. However, it also created specific divisions within the social classes and made life very difficult for the lower classes. Likewise occurred in the Slave Trade; for money-making purposes, whites (and even blacks) sold African people as slaves. Although a new and very prosperous industry was cerated through this slave trade, the social effects were most certainly devastating for large numbers of African slaves. It presents a universal question: when is it worth jeopardizing social harmony for money-making purposes? The IR and Slave trade both dealt with this issue, as economics were the primary objective with social considerations as a side effect.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was most similar to the French Revolution in its social ramifications. Both revolutions connected the people of their respective countries and changed the structuring of the social order. The Revolution in France connected people throughout the country by polarizing their ideals, forcing them to be either revolutionary or conservative. Dividing the people like this increased connectivity amongst the supporters of each side. The Industrial revolution changed this more peacefully, connecting towns or major industrial hubs by way of train. As the map on page 531 showed, railways became a much more prominent feature in Europe. Likely they were most often used for trade and transporting goods, but before long, people would be allowed on too. Increased infrastructure always brings people from far places together allowing for cultural exchange. Also, in the French Revolution, the lower and middle classes were raised above the nobility and clergy. Similarly, in the Industrial Revolution, the wealth and state of living of the lower classes were increased because there was a novel way to make a living that was available for almost anyone. Another possible connection between the two is the increased consumption of natural resources. The French Revolution was, in large part, a war with countries and insurgent groups that opposed the new ideas. Wars always exhaust myriad materials such as metal for weapons, food for troops, and even cloth for uniforms. The Industrial Revolution did something similar except, instead of wasting the raw material without any real product, they manufactured something that could be sold to consumers. The Industrial Revolution was the more fruitful of the two.

The Industrial Revolution and the Slave trade can be related most easily through the economic changes that occurred. As is true with industry, all economies that came in contact with the slave trade came to rely upon it heavily. As opposed to hiring and paying workers indefinitely it was economically more sensible to buy slaves who would work for all their lives and produce children to continue to do the same. For industry, though we would now like to cut back some on it to allay our problem with pollution, it is almost impossible to do so completely. Without manufacturing, many more people would be jobless and all economies would suffer horribly. All the little things that are necessary to our lives were not hand made, but produced through the combined efforts of many production line workers or even just machines that were thought up in the industrial revolution. Arguably, the Industrial Revolution continues today, even if slave trade does not.

Industrial Revolution

The industrial revolution holds many connections to the French Revolution. First of all, both the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution united the people. During the French Revolution, the people came together, and changed up the strict social hierarchy that was established at the time. After the French Rev, it was possible to change social ranks, and they were not as set in stone as before. Similar social changes occurred in the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Rev, there were three main classes in Great Brittain: the British Aristocracy, the Middle Classes, and the Laboring Classes. Similar to the situation in France before the French Rev, it was very difficult to move up a social rank. Also, the large majority was a part of the Laboring Classes, just like the majority of people in France was part of the Third Estate. After the Industrial Revolution, people of the Laboring Classes could get better jobs working in factories, and improve their way of life. Another similarity between the two is how quickly their ideas spread. During the French Revolution, it was mainly ideas that were spread around the population. During the Industrial Revolution, not only were ideas spread, but things were actually built. For example, the amount of trains increased dramatically all over Europe, allowing easier transportation for the people. Both the Industrial Rev and the French Rev's main ideas were spread around different countries. One difference between the two is that the Industrial Revolution had longer positive effects. During the French Revolution, the Terror was instituted - killing 10 000s of people, and France later returned to an absolute monarchy. The Industrial Revolution appears to be permanent. Once people had jobs in factories, the improved their way of life for the rest of their working life in most cases.

The Industrial Revolution also resemble the African Slave Trade. In both cases, the economies grew. Jobs were being created, and the workers were being payed. In the Industrial Rev, many factories were established, creating jobs for many people. These factories manufactured goods, and sold them to make a profit. The creation of the African Slave Trade is similar to creating a  factory. People took other people, and sold them to make money. It created jobs, and opportunities for profit for leaders of African people and slave traders. However, there is one major difference between the Industrial Rev and the African Slave Trade: the things being sold from the factories were objects; the things being sold for the slave trade were people.

The Industrial Revolution

READ Strayer p. 534, then the table on 535, map on 531, and last p. 527-528. Then WRITE a blog post in which you discuss possible connections between what you read and, first, the French Revolution and, second, the African slave trade.

The Industrial Revolution relates to the French Revolution in various ways. First, both transformed European society and Europe advanced farther than many other countries with these two revolutions. The Industrial Revolution helped the economic, scientific, and social change in Europe. For example, agriculture shrank in importance while the social and scientific aspect of Europe grew tremendously. Technology grew of course in the Industrial Revolution because people invented new machines and explored the various ways to complete daily chores. Socially, men and women did not have to work as hard and it socially changed Europe's people and amount of labor. But everybody were not affected positively from the Revolution because it was a tough process and there were a lot of social conflicts. During the French Revolution, everybody was affected socially and economically too. For example, all the peasants and people from the third estate gained social and economic power instead of a few nobles making all the decisions. From this revolution, everybody was not positively affected because there were hundreds of people killed from the new changes socially in France. Overall, these two revolutions had positive and negative impacts on Europe in many different aspects.


The Industrial Revolution and the slave trade can be related with the economic and social changes that happened in Europe. Many people in Europe have used slaves and children for labor in mines, mills, and factories. They needed small children who were young and had a lot of strength to work in the small places that would be difficult labor for adults. Economically, everybody was able to complete tasks and chores quicker with slaves. With slave trade, the wealthy people became non-reliable to work for themselves. They relied extremely on slaves and increased the need for more slaves and increased the slave trade in Europe. The more people used slaves, the more they depended on them to do their work and the people of Europe became more and more non-active.

Saudi's Oil production a weapon against Iran?

This initial focus of this article describes the enhancing oil production Saudi Arabis is undergoing. In a mere two years their oil production has gone from a low $35 a barrel but to an astonishing $80 a barrel just last week. The focus of this article is not only to focus on the increased production of oil but how it affects Iran. The Saudi's have proclaimed that their efforts is simply to help out the global economy and it's deficit. But when you look at their neighboring country you notice that their efforts are not only helping them but it's hurting Iran. The Saudi's only need an amount of $51 dollars a barrel to cover its budget but Iran on the other hand needs an average of $90 a barrel. If the Saudi's were able to produce in the range of about $70-$80 for the rest of the year it would help their surplus, but for Iran it would force them to phase out food and energy subsidies in an attempt to help their economy. Not only would this affect their food and energy but this would force them to rethink their efforts on nuclear weapons. This would not only help the Saudi's but help worldwide.

Foreign Policy

The Article I read was Think Again: Green China which talked about how China is the biggest greenhouse emitter and polluter on one side and on the other side they said that China is was more green advanced then the US. It went on to talk about how China is either the green model of the future or a reminder of the Industrial Revolution. The larger significance is that the harm that China is doing could affect other neighboring countries and it could even be spread to the entire world if not contained. You could argue that with China's advanced Green technology they could remedy the pollution in the entire world and reduce the amount of green house gases that we produce which would help. We have been discusing the Industrial Revolution and this is like a reminder of that in that China has been building many Factories over the years and from those Factories gases and pollution are formed which in turn harm the environment and make it seem like China is not green at all because it does little about this polution which has been affecting the citizens and deforming some because of the chemicals and forced labor kind of like the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade after they brought to their owners wand were forced to work.

Foreign Policy

The article that I read was about how the internet helps potential terrorists across the globe. It tells us that extremists can easily gain access to videos with “hardcore propaganda” and instructions for making explosives. The article brings up these dangers, but it also mentions the rights of free speech. Restricting the internet for these kinds of networks, despite their obvious threat, could be against their rights of free speech. If we take away their right of speech then we begin to fall down a slippery slope of government control. However, the ability to access terrorism is significantly increased by the internet. The article goes on to tell us about the frustrations of the internet and give a few examples of would-be terrorists using the internet. It tells us that propaganda videos are easily spread throughout the internet and start to infest the minds of people who would otherwise not have had such hardcore beliefs. The article is named “A Web of Lone Wolves,” referring to the fact that isolated extremists are much less dangerous than they can connect with others who think like themselves. This is an important thing to note because it shows us that modern technology both helps and hinders the general good. Technology itself is not something inherently good or bad, it really depends on who uses it in the best, most efficient way. In this case, extremists have found a smart way connect and convert people to their cause. I think one of the most significant points of this article was when it touched on freedom of speech. It didn’t say very much, but I think it was important. It tells us that “it will be a continuing challenge for Western governments and societies to draw the fine line between what is protected under the freedom of speech and what is criminalized as direct incitement to murder.” Governments should keep their people safe and protect their rights at the same time. In situations like this, it is hard to keep a balance between them.

A Web Of Lone Wolves

This article talks about the cultural influence of internet, and relates it to the recent killings at Fort Hood. The killer, who was supposedly an Islamic Extremist, would not have had a lot of access to other extremists, which may make ot surprising that he acted so violently and passionately. However, as the article says, the expansion of the internet has not only created more access to useful information, but also more to potentially harmful things. Though the internet, Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan would have been able to converse with other followers, spread his ideas and be influenced by others opinions. The article discussed an Islamic leader who spreads his influence over the internet, making Islamic extremism equally accessible to all.
This is rather disturbing, the way this article so fully exposes the harm the internet can do. I personally use it for basic communication, and also for research and relaxation. However, any tool can be manipulated in some way to fit its users needs, and this has certainly been done. As the article says, the common access to internet allows even the pizza delivery man to plan a violent uprising.

End of the World

The article I read was about the most likely causes to bring the end of humanity in the world. While fortunately, none of these are likely to happen in any of our lifetimes, they could very well happen in the next million years or so. This was probably written as a response to the new movie 2012. which is about the "end of the world." The Mayan calendar suddenly stops on December 21, 2012, (12/21/12) and many (crazy) people believe that the world will end on this day.

Joshua Keating gave five possibilities for the end of the world: an asteroid, climate disaster, nuclear war, a plague, and unknown causes. His thesis is that any of these events could happen , but they are highly unlikely during our lifetime.

An asteroid probably will not happen while we are alive because they only come once or twice every million years. Also, to create any substantial worldwide damage, it would have to be 15 km.

Climate Disaster is the most likely out of all of these to happen because it is already a problem in the world. However, people probably will have found alternative energy sources by the time it gets to be a problem.

Nuclear War: This could happen in our lifetime because if countries with nuclear weapons like Iran or North Korea got into a serious conflict, the effects could be grave.

Plague: There have been many plagues during the course of humanity, most notably the black plague and the current swine flu outbreak. Unfortunately, the diseases harm people faster than a cure can be made.

Unknown
There can be unknown natural or man made causes that could destroy the world like a supervolcano or a gamma ray burst from a star.

The End of the World

This is a response to the article on the Foreign Policy website that I read here.

This weekend I made sure to see the new apocalyptical movie 2012. I waited in line for a 9:40 showing for the 2 hour 38 minute long film in order to get entertained with overly dramatic and highly implausible scenes of the world self-destroying. I was let down, but who doesn't love big budget movies where destruction occurs for the entire movie?

In the Foreign Policy article Joshua Keating talked about five possible scenarios for the end of humanity.

1. Asteroid

Large population threatening asteroids hit about once every two million years, so the chances of this happening are extremely unlikely. But, if an asteroid were to hit Earth, there would be little we could do to stop it.

2. Global Warming

This is the most likely scenario in our lifetime. By the end of the century if carbon emissions are substantially decreased civilization could see the flooding of coastal regions, 1/3 of the Earth being covered in desert and the death of 40-70% of species of animals.

3. Nuclear War

With countries like North Korea and Iran trying to build nuclear weapons, the chances of nuclear war are relatively high. A war between two nuclear superpowers like the U.S. and Russia would leave a lot of dust and smoke behind, which would raise global temperatures, cause a change in precipitation patterns and lead to a huge drought.

4. Plague

Plagues like the Bubonic Plague, the flu pandemic of 1918 and the recent swine flu outbreak are all examples of past and current diseases that have and could wreak havoc on society. Despite big leaps in medicine, the diseases develop just as fast.

5. The Unknown Unknown

There are a huge range of events that could lead to the apocalypse. Natural (giant volcanoes, deadly emissions from stars) and manmade (famine, deadly new technology). The sun is expected to destroy the Earth in 5-8 billion years, but it is unlikely that mankind would survive to see that day.

Exploring man's destructive tendencies without the imminent weight of the apocalypse pressing down on us is an easy way to think about how we might all die. But, depending on your view of the effects of global warming, the apocalypse may be imminent. Also, the fact that a blockbuster movie just came out about the end of the civilization makes this discussion more relevant.

In a way more massive scale, the drastically changing world during the apocalypse is similar to the way France underwent an upheaval and change of society during the French Revolution. I would also argue that the Haitian Revolution saw more of a change than the French Revolution because it was the first completely successful slave revolution, and slaves were much lower on the societal ladder than the Third Estate.

Think Again: Green China

"Is China the green model of the future - or an industrial polluter on a massive scale?" So begins this intriguing article on relative pollution and "greeness," for lack of a better word. Think Again: Green China addresses the rumor that China's enviromental-friendliness and alternate sources of energy surpass the rest of the world. This is partly true, and partly not. On one hand, China is truly advanced in its technology. They have spent much time and money developing more efficient ways of harvesting wind and solar power, and are currently pursuing alternate forms of energy as if it were a top priority of their country. On the other hand, China is already terribly polluted and could hardly be considered "green." Beijing's air is so polluted it can be hard to see the sky, and hundreds of thousands of people die prematurely because of impure air and water. So although China may be ahead of us in its search for Earth-friendly energy, it is already way behind when it comes to keeping our world clean and happy.

This article focuses on China, but it really relates to how other countries view each other. Instead of the USA hoping that any advances or breakthroughs China makes could be great news for our dying planet, we immediately resort to competition and wonder where they are in comparison to us. All of the articles about China focused on whether or not they were a threat to us - if they created more pollution, if they would take our citizens' jobs, if they would make more money than us. The instinctual competition between countries couldn't be more obvious if it was openly spoken about.

Competition and rivalry between countries is not a new theory. During the French Revolution, all the countries surrounding France immediately became suspicious and nervous of France's power and tried to stop them from gaining any more. All countries want to be the undisputed power force in their regions, and this often causes unncessary tensions between countries that could otherwise help each other achieve a common goal.

He's Got the Law (Literally) in His Hands

Being a U.S. citizen, it is hard to imagine not being familiar with the constitution. Even if you don't have the amendments memorized you know, you've heard the phrases "the right to freedom of speech and expression" and "all men created equal" and you know what they mean.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in Liberia. Even the most educated lawyers and government officials don't know the laws. I read the article "He's Got the Law (Literally) in His Hands". It was about a situation in Liberia that most in America would find shocking: only a few copies of the law exist, and all of them are in the hands of one person, Philip Banks. Banks took the copies and placed copyright on them under his name, saying he would improve the justice system in Liberia. However, now the people who need the law the most, lawyers, police, and other law enforcers, can't obtain a copy of the law without paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the copyright. The justice system, judges, lawyers and juries, don't have a copy of the law in print that is necessary for them to make fair decisions. It also makes it easy for a government to become corrupt, and blame it on the fact that they don't have access to the countries most basic laws. Anthony Valcke, a British lawyer working in Liberia who was interviewed for the article, states the main idea of the article: "[the written law] is so fundamental to a democracy that it's unbelievable that this situation has been allowed to exist for so long."

When I read this article, I realized the idea of a written law being so important related exactly to the French Revolution. In order for the National Assembly to be successful, they had to write their laws. This situation in Liberia has become a big problem, and this shows how important is is to have a copy of a law. As we have seen in every example of a successful nation, a country cannot be successful with a fair, non-corrupt justice system, and this system cannot be fair without the law in their hands.

Foreign Policy: Liberian Law...Or Lack Thereof

When you go into a court room, it is customary to assume that the lawyers and the judges inside will know what they are doing. There would be no doubt in any one's mind that they are thoroughly learned in all the laws of the United States. This holds true in a lot of places, but not in Liberia.

In Liberia, a man by the name of Philip Banks holds the copyright for the only full volume of the country's laws and legal codes. Banks, along with a small team of lawyers, compiled all of the country's newest laws into one volume. This volume has been copied only a few times, and given out in only rural areas. Aside from the volume that Banks has, the laws have essentially been lost. Due to the lack of law knowledge around the rest of the country, judges have been making decisions off of 2o year old laws that are owned by the government and hardly make sense anymore. Banks knows this is a problem, but he sees his volume full of laws as his original property. He says that without his works, the laws would be gone forever. Banks contends that the only reason why he has the copyright in the first place is because the government refused to give him enough money to fuel his project. Now he refuses to give the copyright to the Liberian government because he believes he should be compensated.

This article now begs the question of whether or not it is more important to donate the results of your hard work to where they are needed, or to be fairly compensated. Apparently, Banks thinks that its more important to be compensated for his work. However, I believe that in keeping the volume and copyright to himself, he is keeping the laws from the country where they are needed. All Banks wanted to do in the first place was make sure that the laws were safe from being lost, but in hoarding the copyright to himself, he is causing the same affect. Laws are made for the people so that there is justice found in every situation. Justice does no good when it is kept to a single person, and that is just what Banks is doing. This article teaches a lesson to all and that lesson is that sometimes it is more important to donate your work so that it makes a difference, even if it means that you wont be payed.

War zone or post-national paradise?

In this blog article, Jordana Timerman explains her views on the border between Mexico and the United States. She explains that the images of people shot to death, gunmen wearing bullet-proof vests make up evidence that the border is an all out war zone. Apparently, officials from both the United States and Mexico have been thinking about rethinking the border between these two countries. Many illegal drugs pass from Mexico to the United States, and certain groups wish to target the passage of these illegal drugs on both sides of the border. They propose to ban assault weapons, and focus more on finding and preventing the smuggling of arms and illicit drugs. These groups also propose to reform the immigration laws in the United States, and that Mexico start taking illegal immigration as a serious issue. Timerman also informs us that, since there's been talk about electric fences and vigilantes, these ideas sound pretty good.

This article suggests that the problems on the border go both ways. The United States should re-think it's border plan, but Mexico should take illegal immigration seriously. However, illegal immigration doesn't only affect population growth. Illegal drugs can be passed over the border, affecting the health and safety of millions of people, if the drugs get around. The fact that people are shot to death at the border signifies that there needs to be significantly more communication between the Unites States and Mexico. Zooming out, this shows that lives can be saved with just better communication.

If Louis XVI communicated more with his people, many lives would have been saved. If he listened to them, he would not have died at the guillotine. The tons of people who died during the reign of Terror would have been able to live full lives until their natural deaths. Also, the people's living conditions would have improved immensely, making people lives longer and happier. All this could have happened with a little communication...

Kiva

Many people are familiar with Kiva. It's a microfinancing website that hosts profiles for people in third world countries who need help to raise a certain amount of funds. You can lend them money to assist their efforts, and after they make enough to offset the loan, the money will be returned to you. Kiva prides itself on its ability to offer an opportunity for you to directly help an individual and watch their progress as their business continues. Well, Kiva may not be as transparent as it seems. What if you found out that the person you were lending money to had been given their requested loan in its entirety one week ago? The truth is, another organization approves and distributes the loans even before each person's profile is publicly set up on the website. The money you are lending is pooled by this middle-man agency and then doled out as seen fit. Kiva is not as direct as many still believe it to be.

This information does not affect the integrity of Kiva because it still stands as an organization that allows for a better standard of life, however the money is distributed. As long as the people who need money are getting their money, and people who lend money have that money returned to them eventually, what does it matter how the money got there? That said, the strength of Kiva really isn't as a microfinance organization alone. People are attracted to it because they are under the impression that they, as an individual, are directly influencing the life of another person. If Kiva advertised the truth, the number of donors would drop severely because it would no longer appeal to the basic human instinct to help out other human beings. Again, I think that this is a very smart decision on Kiva's part. The core problem that it seeks to correct is poverty, poverty that could be surpassed if people were just given a chance. Yes, it could be said that Kiva takes advantage of people through a couple of carefully concealed details, but the fact is that Kiva still presents opportunities for those who would have had none. And isn't that what really matters?

Although this article does not tackle the problem of poverty directly, Kiva's goal is to share opportunities with people from third world countries, and by creating a website that persuades people to allow these opportunities, Kiva slowly increases the quality of life elsewhere in the world. As the article asserts, it does not matter whether Kiva is being directly truthful. The problem it tackles is that we are naturally caught up in the world around us. Although it is debatable if it is our responsibility to share our personal wealth with that of another country, Kiva does a great job of assisting these individuals by drawing an emotional response out of us. Either way, the fact of the matter is, their quality of life is so much worse, in general, making it that much harder for hard-working people to get by.

Comparing the French Revolution to the Situation in Afghanistan

I recently read an article concerning the elections in Afghanistan. The article (found here)insists that the victor of the elections is and will be the highest ranked military official in Afghanistan, a warlord/marshall named Mohammad Qasim Fahim. The article insists that by Fahim coming to power, the Afghan people and the American presence in Afghanistan will suffer immensely. Fahim is described as human rights abusing, and drug trafficking; not exactly the type a citizen would want running there country. Overall, the Afghan people are to accept there new leader, despite fighting alongside United States Forces for a leader that fits their needs.
When I read this article, I couldn't help but draw connections from the situation in Afghanistan to the French Revolution. My main connection was that both had failed to implant the type of ruler or government that they had wanted despite fighting hard for political change. France fought for a democratic government that gave more representation in government and were left with Napoleon the despot. Similar to France, Afghani's and United States forces continue to fight for political change yet end up with another military officer in charge. In both cases, once the fighters were given the opportunity to change their government they failed to change anything at all and let a military leader take charge. The situation in Afghanistan and the French Revolution are identical in the way that when the people controlled their own political future, they failed to implant a new government, and the military took over. Overall, the similarity between the two events concludes that in the event of a revolution, 9 times out of 10 the most powerful military leader will seize control.

Think Again: Green China

WRITE a blog post in which you first introduce and summarize the article and then explain the larger significance of the information the article covers. Try to relate what the article discusses to the history we've learned – essentially try to create a thesis about why the article matters.

The article "Think Again: Green China" discussed how China is doing with environmental problems. There has been disagreement over this over the last few years. Because China is very advanced technologically, China has been fairly successful with the green aspect, such as using renewable energy. Regardless of China's impressive technology, it is still "a pure environmental villain," as China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country. The article is somewhat inconclusive in that it does not say whether China is a good model for other countries. Although China works hard to advance environmental technology, it still is the most damaging country in the world. This article is significant because it talks about what countries are doing to better the world. The article discusses issues and attempts to solutions of these issues. The article talks about the United States and China, and how they are both doing in relationship to each other.

The most prominent issue in this article should be China and what they could do better to improve the environment situation in the world. However, the article instead discusses how China compares to the United States. The whole article was about the competition between the two countries. It says that America should work to keep their "competitive edge in the global marketplace," and even talks about onside being "ahead" of the other. This is similar to any point in time. Competing with other countries is necessary because having advancements in ideas, goods, and money give a basis of trade with other countries. In order to get what you do not have, countries must give what they have that others lack. During the French Revolution, France was a step ahead of the rest of the world with its political ideas. Because of its competition with other countries, when France shared their ideas with other countries they received new advancements for themselves.

Foreign Policy: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Oil

Saudi Arabia serves as an essential worldwide oil producer, especially to Iran. Recently, the Saudi Arabian government has considered constraining oil prices that will perhaps weaken Iran's budget, especially for nuclear power. While Iran depends on oil prices around $90, the price of oil is now fumbling around $70-80. Since Saudi Arabia is affiliated with many other countries on the oil front, international affairs could change between certain connected nations.

The U.S. also depends greatly on Saudi Arabia as an oil supplier. This recent idea to attempt to damage Iran's budget could be an indirect request of the United States. Through Saudi Arabia's oil trade with Iran, the U.S. could second-handedly decrease Iran's budget to help prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons. This circumstance is a display of the complications of trade and how the motivations of one country can be executed through another. It shows each nations' incentives, biases, and alliances with one another. In this case, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. could share a common opinion towards Iran. On the other hand, Iran could identify the threat imposed on itself by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

From Red to Green: China and Pollution

Driving home on the highway after a rain, the sun sets in the rearview mirror casting orange light across the afternoon sky. In the distance you can see the stark outline of the mountains through the window. On the hillsides you imagine a short dusting scrub that makes their flanks look soft. You want to stroke your fingers across the mountian, as you would pet a cat, but of course you cannot. This is how it should be, you think. Most of the time, though, that is not how it is. On summer and fall days expecially it is not the mountains that welcome you home, but an overlying crest of smog, choking your vision until you cannot even see a blur of an outline of the range through the smear. This is the issue that confronts us in the day and age of industry. The steady decline of the state of the environment.

For a long time now, the United States has a had a strange sort of sinking feeling - that it has been losing ground politically, economically, and now environmentally. We are no longer the same world power that we once were. Our economic decline has pulled us down to the normal level of influence, dragging everyone else as well. All, that is, but China. China has grown in all realms of power, becoming the world's manufacturer, and developing itself in terms of preventing pollution. Our fear that China will take over the world with its leaps and bounds in saving the environment, however, are unfounded.

I read an article called "Think Again: Green China" which discussed both China's failures and successes in terms of the environment. Written in response to rumors that China has outdone the U.S. in this field, the story makes the point that although China does have more ambitions and is working harder currently to work against pollution, it has many more problems to fix than we do. If seen in terms of a race track, we are starting many steps ahead of them. China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, the Chinese cities of Linfen and Tianying placing the top two most polluted in the world. Data cited in the article shows that 750,000 chinese people die early due to the poor condition of air, water, and earth. Despite statements that China is surging forward with manufacturing alternative energy sources, such as solar panels or wind turbines, it is also true that 90 percent of those created are traded off. So even if China is creating these sources, it certainly does not benefit from any of them in a big way.

On the other hand, though, is the fact that China's legislation on the subject is much better than ours and most others'. They have the single child law which restricts the population and through it consumption of the country's resources, as well as a law banning plastic bags and resources. The article uses these points to argue that their government system is not conducive to actual change in society. I agree and disagree; although it may take a while for changes to take hold, the fact that these changes are spreading at all is hugely important. Even if not everyone follows these laws, the fact is that most will, and this is enough to make a significant difference. As polluted as they are, this legislation adds greatly to any case that someone might make for China and environmentalism. In any case, it is much more than the United States has done, even with the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen looming. This brings us to the culminating statement of the article; even if China is gaining ground in this "race," we cannot blame them for our own indolence. Power has lulled us into a state of undeserved complacency. Even if it is arrogance and pride, the need to always come out on top, that spurrs us into motion in this situation, it is better than watching in horror as we are bested again. We must do something, if we are to be mollified.

Though this issue is obviously important to the modern world, as an issue of both world power and protecting the earth from the danger that is global warming and pollution, it is more difficult to apply it to what we have learned of European history. In this, I will have to look to the more general political side of the problem. As we have seen in all facets of the French Revolution, it is when a leader stops striving to improve the condition of the state that he or she is overthrown. The people simply become dissatisfied with settling for what has never worked or could be done better. Perhaps, there is something similar to be seen in the power of the United States. If it does not stop speaking and start acting on the issue of the environment, it will lose even more of the power that has long slipped from its grip. Making a difference is not easy, but it is for the best of all. Change is beneficial to a people, as stagnation is not.

WRITE a blog post in which you first introduce and summarize the article and then explain the larger significance of the information the article covers. Try to relate what the article discusses to the history we've learned – essentially try to create a thesis about why the article matters. For models of blog posts – to find proper tone, organization, and length – feel free to check out the blog from my senior English class. It's on a very different set of topics, but the structure of blog posts remains the same.

Many of you know of the new movie coming out, 2012. It features regular people who encounter the end of the world during the year 2012. There are many theories of how and when the Earth will come to an end, and some are more farfetched than others.

One theory of how this could happen is from objects impacting the earth's atmosphere and an asteriod occasionally makes it through the atmosphere. Eventually, a large enough asteriod will cause enough damage worldwide when it impacts the earth, such as how the dinasours were killed. If another one of those objects impacts the earth, we will most likely be wiped out too. The only thing about this theory is that an object large enough to do that comes about only once or twice every million years. So this theory is not very likely to occur in 2012.

A second theory is climate disaster or global warming. By the end of this century, it is predicted that the Earth will increase 4-5 degrees and will affect sea levels in a negative way. It would rise the sea levels and floods would occur more often. More the Earth's temperature increases, the water supply would decrease and many countries would experience drought.

A third theory is a nuclear war. With thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, there is some fear of a nuclear winter. It is predicted that lgobal agriculture would be wiped out that would lead ot famine and kill most humans. Also, with so many nuclear warheads in the world, people are afraid of wars reducing the Earth and its environmental needs. But the nuclear winter theory is controversial and an all-out nuclear war between two powers is far less likely now than it was before.

These articles relate to the propoganda that people tried to put in certain works such as the famous painting from David. He put in false information to fool the audience and public to thinking certain ideas that were obvioulsy false. Apparrently, there are a lot of different theories of how the world will end, and those different ideas are propoganda that scares and worries the public. It is similar to the propoganda that we were just studying about and how anyone can influence the public with works of art and articles such as these. Also, we were studying SPECS and scientific research is one of them. Scientists have been studying and analyzing the history of the earth and that is how they have come up with their conclusions. Scientific research has come a far way since the 1700's when there were many scientific revolutions. During that time is when people started to believe more in science and not rely on religion. These examples show that people in the 1700's and now still act the same way and how these articles relate to the topics we have been studying recently.

Industrial Revolution

The industrial revolution happened during the time period of the 18th and 19th century. Different categories such as agriculture, manufacturing, mining and transport had a huge effect on the socioeconomic stature in the United Kingdom. This not only helped the North America but it had a profound effect on almost every daily lives of people. In the beginning part of the 18th century, Great Britain started to be influenced by Machine-Based manufacturing. What started the industrial revolution was the development of iron-making techniques, and the increase of refined coal. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals. 

The industrial revolution not only helped the economic structure of North America but also shaped the world by allowing different forms of culture to form around the world.

Atlantic Slave Trade and the Industrial Revolution

I definitely know individual facts about both the Atlantic slave trade and the Industrial Revolution, but not much about how they are connected.

The Atlantic slave trade was a long history of Europeans coming to Africa and forcibly taking Africans from their homes and transporting them to colonies in the Americas via ship. The conditions on board the ships were incredibly inhumane, and many slaves died on the voyage.

The Industrial Revolution was a cultural phenomenon that occurred in England sometime in the 19th century or early 20th century. This was when people began to use machinery to produce goods instead of relying heavily on skilled workers. The Industrial Revolution caused an enormous change in the economy in England and in the rest of Europe because of how the increase in the number of products it was now possible to produce and the decrease in cost of production.

My hypothesis in how these two terms are related is that the Industrial Revolution caused a huge decrease in the demand for slaves in the Americas. Slaves' manual labor was now longer needed as much in these less developed colonies because now goods were being made by machinery back in Europe. Also, I think the Industrial Revolution was right around the time when slavery started to dry up.

Atlantic slave trade and the Industrial Revolution

I truthfully don't know much about the slave trade or the industrial revolution; I don't remember learning about it ever. From what it implies and the basic knowledge I have about slaves, I can guess that it had to do with the trading of slaves from Africa to America. Innocent people of Africa were swept off their country by merchants who then sold them off by a high price to those who needed the physical labor. I'm not quite sure about this, but I think that African kings also sold their people off for goods. I assume that they were mainly sold to work at plantation farms, where they would most likely spend the rest of their lives working and unpaid as well. They were forced to do labor and were not granted the smallest bit of rest nor help. The slaves were basically a part of the possessor's estate, and so would be their offspring. I have no idea what the industrial revolution is, but I assume it had to do with the improvement of the industry and work. Numerous new factories and machines appeared and enhanced the business but required more workers and support. This probably improved the productions and technology at the time and greatly advanced the country economically, but forced labor on people who couldn't handle it.

Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic Slave Trade

All that I remember about that Industrial Revolution or know is that there were many factories, railroads, and vehicles such as trains then being manufactured. Also that it required more forced labor and it made tons of people have to work on/with it. The Industrial Revolution was also away to increase the technology, as I said at the beginning certain vehicles and labor facilities ie: factories would have been made because of labor and inside a factory there had to have been labor or else the factory would not have flourished or even stayed in business. The Atlantic Slave Trade I remember being where European and even Americans would come by boat to the shores of Africa and round up local citizens who then would be forced to do slave work or more labor, but not before the families were auctioned off by buyers looking for some cheap work that would not cost them much. By separating the slaves they would literally tear apart families without a care in mind. There was also a connection between the two if I recall that once the slaves were sent to America, the Americans would send minerals and resources such as wood to England who then used these resources to build factories and induce labor onto some of the slaves they rounded up to work in the factories.

Industrial Revolution and Atlantic Slave Trade

Although I don't know much about the Industrial Revolution, I feel that I have a semi-accurate memory of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. I believe that ships traveled to Africa where they would take prisoners as slaves and ship them to plantations in America. The Americans would then trade supplies like cotton and sugar for the slaves, which would be taken to the British and French colonies on the Carribean islands. The money from the supplies would then be shipped back to Africa to be used to buy more slaves. I am not positive of the accuracey of this description, but I know that the slave trade formed a triangle stretching across the Atlantic Ocean which involved many countries and an exchange of human beings for money and goods.

This system, although profitable, could not have been good for the Enlightenment. By putting a price on the life of a human being, people imply that not all people are equal and that life is not as precious as we might believe. These thoughts definitely oppose most of the views of the Enlightenment thinkers we researched who believe in things like equal rights and power to the people. I don't know what the Industrial Revolution in Europe was like, but my guess is that it introduced many new ideas and helped move the Enlightenment along even more.

Slave Trade

I do not know much about the slave trade. I know, as it name says, the trading of slaves across the atlantic ocean for money and goods. Slaves were taken away from their home in Africa and they were sent to places like the USA and Europe and in exchange, their home country got some money and goods. Also, I know that many philosophes in France, like Marquis de Condorcet, were against slavery in France. About the industrial revolution in Europe, I do not know absolutely anything.

I had some questions about both the slave trade and the industrial revolution.
Slave Trade:
How did the government of the countries allow their people to be taken away like they were?

Industrial Revolution:
What happened?
What sort of machines were created?
Who were the main people involved in this?

Previous Knowledge of the Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic Slave Trade

The Atlantic Slave Trade was the trading of slaves across the atlantic ocean. European's set up ports and centers in Africa where they could kidnap Africans from their homeland, ship them overseas to countries with a growing need for workers that can endure manual labor and sell them as slaves. A favorite trading spot for these slave-traders to sell their goods was the United States because of the growing of the cotton and indigo industries and their need for a cheap work force.
The Industrial Revolution was a period in time where many new advancements in technology led to increased production of goods and less strenuous manual labor for the workers. A good example of a technological improvement from the industrial revolution was the invention of the cotton gin. the cotton gin made the work of slaves on southern plantations much easier because it saved many long hours of dreary labor for the slaves, giving them more time to pick cotton as well as increase production. The cotton gin is just one of the many innovations that had a large impact on the economy and only one small part of the Industrial Revolution.

Preview on the Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic Slave Trade

The Industrial Revolution (IR) is a time period in European history in which there were huge increases in industry and mass production. Factories and new methods of farming played key roles in the goals and results of the Industrial revolution. Engineers, scientists, and worker learned more about how to build efficient laboring technology and applied this technology to everyday factory work and farming. The IR is also significant because it applied ideas from the Scientific Revolution to everyday life, in terms of technology, engineering, and efficient farming patterns. However, the IR also introduced new issues, such as poverty, unhealthy work environments, and child labor. Through the IR, social class distinctions were emphasized. A worker's title placed him in a certain social class based on his/her salary. For instance, bankers were at the upper end of the social ladder, while coal miners placed lower. Through the IR, important advancements in laboring methods were introduced, but the downturns remain obvious as well.

The Atlantic Slave Trade (AST) consisted of a "trading triangle" between Africa, the Americas, and Europe. Through this trade route, slaves from Africa were transported to plantations across the globe. Due to horrid health conditions in transporting ships, many slaves died on their way to their workplaces. In addition, they were considered the lowest social class and were treated poorly as they worked for wealthy white landowners. As the years progressed and as Enlightenment ideas spread, slaves gained awareness of their potential rights as human beings, soon leading to various violent slave revolution in numerous territories.

Atlantic Slave Trade and The Industrial Revolution

Atlantic slave trade was exactly what it sounds like, slave trade across the Atlantic ocean. Slaves were taken from their homes in west and central Africa and brought to America as slaves. They were forced to do hard, manual labor and were treated not as human beings, but rather as animals or livestock of sorts. People were able to buy, sell, trade, and treat them as they liked. Many of them were sold to plantation owners to work on fields of things like cotton, coffee, and sugar. They were essential to the economy at the time because they worked for free and therefore gave the plantation owners lower costs to maintain their fields and give them a large profit margin. The industrial revolution was a period in time when many places were making huge advances in technology, especially technology that made physical labor easier and more efficient. A revolution like this brings progress to all SPECS categories. Scientifically, it is obvious, new technology means scientific advancement. Socially and culturally it brings new ways of thinking and brings the lower classes closer to the higher ones in terms of getting a chance for education. If they have machines that can do their jobs faster and with less effort, then they can spend more time trying to learn or picking up hobbies. Economically it helps because people could then create more goods in the same amount of time, giving them a surplus and letting them sell it.

Industrial Revolution/Slave Trade

I basically know nothing about the industrial revolution. All prior knowledge is what can be guessed from the name, and vague memories of a children's book I had in 3rd grade with one page on it. Basically, what I know about the Industrial revolution is that it was when a lot of manufacturing picked up, lots of new industries were started, tons of coal was burned and there was a lot of pollution.

My knowledge about the slave trade is also slightly sparse. Here is the little that I know:
European slavers went to Africa, and captured (usually though trickery) people, whom they crammed onto boats with unsanitary conditions to take back to Europe. Families were usually split up, slaves mistreated from the moment they were captured, and humans were essentially possessions. The slave trade had a lot of economical value, not only for the slavers, but also for those who bought the slaves, because they could force them to work for hours on end, and never pay them, which is why it took so long for slavery to be abolished completely in many places.

Slave trade and European Industrial Revolution

I'm going to be honest, I don't remember much from middle school history about the slave trade. I know that people were taken from their homes in Africa to be shipped off to different places in the world to be slaves. The chiefs of African tribes would either -I can't remember- a) sell their own people to the slave traders for profit, or b) kidnap people from other tribes and sell them. The conditions on the boat were terrible. They barely had any room to move, since as many people as possible were crammed into large boats. Many people became ill with disease from the horrendous conditions, and died on the boat. They were tossed overboard so as not to stink up the boat. They were treated terribly even off the boat, and were chained to one another to make sure they could not escape. Once they arrived at their final destination, they would be auctioned off to the highest possible bidder. Families were separated, and many buyers could care less whether they were or not. Usually, the strongest, fittest men would sell for the best price, since they could do the most hard labor. I don't remember when the slave trade started, but would like to know. I'd be curious to know who thought up this "wonderful" - sarcastic- idea to treat people this way. Also, I'd like to know how they could treat people this terribly - what motivated them?

I do not remember that much about the industrial revolution in Europe either. I know that people started inventing machines - machines that could do work. These machines and contraptions started taking the places of people who worked, causing them to be without jobs. The companies realized that they would save quite a bit of money if they had machines do work. They did not have to pay them, like they had to pay the workers. That's pretty much all I remember. I'd like to find out what these people did once they were fired? Also, when did this take place? It might have caused the people to be unhappy, making them more likely to revolt.

Industrial Revolution and Atlantic Slave Trade

Everything I know about the Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic Slave Trade is from a US standpoint. The Industrial Revolution took place during the 18th and 19th centuries. During the Industrial Revolution in the US, there were inventions that led to great stimulus in economy and society. The inventions started with agriculture. Many machines were made, such as the cotton gin, that led to efficiency and speed while growing and picking crops. There were also industries and factories that produced goods in mass production. This brought jobs to many unskilled workers who would work all day in the factories with the machinery and produced many products in mass fashion, and received very cheap pay. It also took jobs away from many skilled craftsmen who took much longer to produce products. Overall, the new inventions from the Industrial Revolution greatly stimulated the economy because it led to a very cheap and efficient way for mass production and distribution across the US. This later led to successful trade with other countries of all the crops and other products.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in the US was when Americans went to Africa and kidnapped many people who became slaves. The slaves were treated as property, and were bought, sold, and traded as if they were goods. A majority of the slaves in the US worked on plantations. There they picked crops such as cotton and worked long days in the blazing sun. They lived in terrible conditions, being given very little in terms of shelter and food. As the Industrial Revolution occurred, the demand for slaves declined. The reason for this was because new machinery could get a lot done much faster, so one person using the machinery could do the work of many in a day. After a while, the terrible living conditions of slaves sparked interest of people in the US, particularly in the North which led to questioning beliefs and rebellion.

Atlantic Slave Trade and the Industrial Revolution

From what I understand, the slave trade was when people were taken from Africa and forced to work for people in America. Slaves were brutally taken from their homeland, shipped on a filthy boat which they were packed into like sardines, then sold to plantation owners. The conditions on the slave vessels were awful, the slaves were abused, and many died on the long journey. At the plantation, they were forced to work for the rest of their lives. This brought in an extreme profit for wealthy land owners in a growing America, but it completely disregarded the rights that these slaves had as human beings.

I honestly have no recollection of the industrial revolution. I think (although I might be confusing myself) that it was the revolution of factories and machines that make work a lot easier and more proficient. This allowed people to make much more money and much faster. I'm wondering, first of all, if I'm actually right. If I am, I would like to know what kind of advances came out of this period and how giant of an impact it had on the common working man.

Industrial Revolution and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

I really don't know much about either one of these because the last time I learned anything about them was in eighth grade. Most of what I do remember about the Industrial Revolution is about what happened in the US. If I remember correctly, there were a lot of factories being built in the north, along with trains that made trade and travel easier. I feel like there might have been something going on using boats and waterways to connect the south more efficiently, but I don't really remember very much. However, I do remember that the South had a lot to do with the slave trade, seeing as there were many plantations. When we read a book in eighth grade, we learned that the slave trade was a really horrible thing to try to wrap your head around. The boats that the slaves were trafficked in where awfully small and cramped and there were no comforts at all. The slaves were brought from Africa to the Americas where they were then treated like livestock and bought as workers.

I dont really remember much other than that. What I would really like to know is what happened in Europe during the Industrial Revolution because I've never been taught about that.

The Industrail Revolution and the Atlantic Slave Trade

The Atlantic Slave Trade had to do with, as stated in it's name, trafficking African slaves across the Atlantic to colonies in the Americas. Slaves were a cheap labor source for plantations owners in the South. They were treated like property: people could buy, sell and trade them, and as long as they owned the slave, the owner also owned the next generation of that slave's family. Without slaves and the amount of hard labor they did, the plantations in the South would not have been possible. However, the slaves were not treated as human beings. This relates to revolutions because of the issue of equality. Slaves were whipped for the smallest things, even if they were too old, sick, or weak to work. Because equality was such a huge issue in the French Revolutions, this can be tied into slavery. Also, as Nicole said, if the slaves were to revolt, the entire economy would be overturned, as seen in the Haitian Revolution.

I never learned about the Industrial Revolution in Europe, however I did learn a lot about the Industrial Revolution in America in eighth grade, and I would guess it had to do with a lot of the same things. The industrial revolution was when machines and factories became a huge part of the economy. As a result of so many factories and working communities, cities became overcrowded. Woman and children were forced to work, and almost all workers were paid unfair wages. This fits in with the scientific revolution because as a result of science, machines and factories became possible. Socially, it still didn't help the problem of equality because poor people were forced to work in dangerous conditions, and rich people (owners of factories) could live in luxury.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and Industrial Revolution

The Atlantic slave trade, as is implied by its name, was a trafficking business that sold Africans to the plantation owners of the European colonies in the Americas. As Justin said, these slaves were made to do manual labor, such as tilling fields, planting, and gathering the products. There were treated abominably, whipped for the slightest disobedience, hardly accorded any rights that you would any human being. In terms of investment, purchasing slaves if you could afford them made sense in the long run - you did not have to keep paying them as you would laborers, and they and their children were yours forever, unlike indentured servants. When there were slave revolts, the economy of the colony where they occurred was completely over-turned. An example of this was the Haitian Revolution. This trade ties in with the revolutions in that it contradicted them completely with oppression, lack of freedom and equality, and the immorality of the slave owners.

Though I do not know what actually happened in this revolution I would hazard a guess that the following might be true. The Industrial Revolution was most likely a product of the ideas generated during the scientific revolution. This Revolution though probably had more to do with executing these concepts than its predecessor. Concerned with making machines, this revolution would upend society not through thought, but through the economy. With machines to help people with work, a wide range of jobs available only to men before would become more easily done by women and children both. This, of course, led to issues of feminism (they now have both the ability and right to work) and child labor (working for lower pay and being taken advantage of). Even with the myriad problems that industry produces, there were many advantages as well. With work available to a greater number of people, more had the possibility of improving their station, further removing the class boundaries that they had worked so hard against in the French revolution. There is also now possibility for increased infrastructure. Generally, this type of revolution would better the state of living of many people, especially city-dwellers.

Atlantic Slave trade, Industrial Rev.

WRITE a blog post in which you explain everything you know, might know, and don't know about the Atlantic slave trade and the Industrial Revolution in Europe. If you don't know anything about either – or aren't confident in what you may know – explain what questions you have about trade and industrialization and how they fit with the scientific, social, and political revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries.

The Atlantic slave trade was also called the transatlantic slave trade. People traded African people to America. The enslaved people were forced to work on sugar, cocoa, cotton plantations, and mines. They basically had to complete the tasks that the rich people were to lazy to accomplish. The enslaved people were obtained coastal trading with Africans through European slave traders through kidnapping and raids through their homes. Around 10-12 million Africans arrived in the “New World”. This slave trading affected the social aspect of countries because they started to become lazy and relied on the slaves to do everything for them. How does it affect the scientific and political sections of the countries? I see that it could have stirred up controversies in the countries because some people did not agree with owning slaves. They basically thought of it as unreasonable.

The Industrial Revolution was from the 18th century to the 19th century. There were major changes in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and transportation. People started to use machine-based manufacturing instead of animals because it was more reliable and efficient. They also improved roads, railways, and many other types of machinery. The revolution eventually affected the whole world because Europe and most of North America was industrializing. During the revolutions, there was technological and economic progress with steam powered ships and other creations. There was large growth in the economy, and it positively affected the scientific aspect of the whole world. People were much farther advanced with technology for warfare, transportation, and basic work in daily life. But I don’t see how this affects the countries politically because it mostly changes the science advancement.

Jacques-Louis David

WRITE a blog post in which you first identify and analyze Simon Schama's thesis from The Power of Art: Jacques-Louis David and second test it by selecting a piece of David's art and analyzing the purpose – propaganda or not – of your selected work.

Schama's thesis said that art was a clear form of propaganda, because it is an easy way to exaggerate and express opinion. By slightly bending what is true in a visual manner, creates a conclusion that is forced upon the interpreter. David was certainly a proof to Simon Schama's thesis from The Power of Art: Jacques-Louis David because he made his paintings inflicting his own personal bias. The way he

painted created a new opinion for viewers of the paintings.

This painting of Jesus Christ on the cross is a great example of Schama's thesis. In this painting David draws the picture how his personal interpretation of the moment was, or even an exaggerated version of this instance. Christ's crucifixion is shown in this drawing as very high and mighty. In the background of the painting there is the city behind him, and the face that he is above it illustrates his mightiness. David shows his bias here through his painting, and many people who view the picture change their opinion(s) to match what is reflected in the painting.