stephen's blog

Potential Questions

stevelev — Thu, 20 May 2010 18:39:12 +0000

How did the political landscape of Europe change from the 16th century to the mid 20th century?

Compare the enlightnement thinkers’ political social and economic effects on Western Europe and China during the 18th to 20th centuries.

Hegel and Marx Answers

stevelev — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:01:34 +0000

4. The word “dialectic” essentially means logic. Hegel is arguing that the process of history happens in a logical pattern. Though man may not know why an event is significant, it is all apart of larger process. The dialectic argument towards the process of history is that events that affect history do not happen randomly, they instead happen in a logic order that can be studied by people later in the future.

5. Hegel is able to illustrate his dialectical approach by using a “cause and effect” grouping under his headings of “The Oriental World,” ” The Classical World,” and “The Germanic World.” He shows that because the “Orientals” believed that only “one is free” they logically would tend to form a government “expressed by despotism,” in other words one man rules. While talking about the Classical World, he says how the Greeks thought “some were free” so the logically and naturally “expressed [themselves] through the city-states” with few citizens who had rights and many slaves who had no rights. Lastly, while talking about the Germanic World, he mentions how they were “influenced by Christ” and that all men were free. This logically leads to a government system where all are free. His point is very clear that history and patterns can be explained through a dialectical or logical approach.

6. In the excerpt, Marx makes references to that “universal reformer” , to the “French Revolution”, and to many other Napoleonic codes. Napoleon passed many laws for the bourgeoisie and Marx was trying to reverse that trend. He was trying to make more laws for the proletariat, lower social-class. He does this by trying to make his claim similar to that of the French Revolution. This is why mentioning the French Revolution was so important.He is trying to stir all the people of the lower class away from the industry that supports the Bourgeoisie that they do not like. Instead industry should be focused on the proletariat.

7. Marx uses the dialectical approach to history when talking about all the changes that have happened in the world around 1800 that have hurt the proletariat system and favored the bourgeoisie system. His logical approach is not to try to overly convince the people on his system, but to instead show how the bourgeoisie system is bad. Dialectically if the system favoring the “pretty artisan…and….small peasant” is failing, then people should turn to the system that helps out the hard earn land of the proletariat.

8. Both Hegel and Marx look at the dialectical approach of History in the same format. They both break it up into specific examples, Hegel with the Orientals, Greeks, and Germans, while Marx looks at it through examples of the wage-laborers and their impact on society. While Hegel argues that the dialectical system can be studied from past to present, i.e the “one is free” idea brings about a despotism style of government, Marx argues that the present dominates the past. He is saying that present events can’t help explain the past more logically. That is why in his communist society, laborers open up and enrich the work force. The history of this can be studied by starting with the finished product and look at the personality and greatness of the workers that made the product happen.

Adam Smith Responses

stevelev — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:28:23 +0000

1. The invisible hand referred to by Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nation’s is a force that drives individual business people away from self gain and towards “an end which was no part of [their] intention.” The invisible force makes government unnecessary in the economics of a society. The force stirs people away from self-interest and toward the growth of the economy as a whole. The invisible force helps keeps the economy away from government intervention and selfish businessmen.

2. Smith claims that governments should not get involved in the economy because it is impossible for “groups of people” i.e governments to control private people’s capitals successfully. He claims that governments would be less trustworthy then private people in capital affairs and that government intervention would be “dangerous.”

3. In this book, Adam Smith calls on many of John Locke’s ideals. He talks about the natural rights that each person as those of life and liberty and the governments duties. Smith also talks about them duties that a government has in the society. Just like Locke, Smith claims that the government should be their to protect and serve the people, nothing more. Smith also uses some Hobbesian ideals. He implies that people are inherently bad and if in complete control of a capital, would fail.

4. Adam Smith’s definition of the division of labor is the economic specializations or in other words the different jobs in the economy people take. As for production, the division of labor improved the skill of the workers, saved time, and, with the help of inventions, made one man capable of many jobs.

5. Adam Smith shows how individually a man may be able to only make 20 pins in a day, but when all the men work together and divide the labor, they can make upwards to 4800. Smith illustrates each mans individual role in the production of the products.

6. The pin factories’ productivity increase is shown purely by the numbers. Smith tells the products of an individual man, 20 pins, and a group of men after dividing up the labor, 4800 pins. This truly shows the increase in productivity.

7. The relationship between the division of labor and the skills of the workers is directly related. If the workers do not know how to use the inventions properly, then the division of labor will not work. The division of labor requires that each person is skilled in their one specific job towards the final product

Preconditions of Industrial Revolution

stevelev — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:42:58 +0000

The two main causal factors of the Industrial Revolution according to Fernandez-Armesto are the rise in population from the 1800 to 1900 and the fast production of food. Although the population increase did shift the power and resources of the nineteenth century to the West, food production was far more influential.

Food production fostered population growth, transformed regions from unimportant to vital, and made food an industrial product. Populations had previously grown at a constant rate at about .5% per year, but once new areas were exploited for food, rates of increase took off. The wetlands, bad soils, prairies were now used for”rice farming…, coconuts…, and rais[ing] cattle” respectively (Armesto 776-777). These new areas were able to feed growing populations. The food production was able to keep increasing the population even when famine or disease struck. Also, new lands such as the prairie were hospitable because of the abundance of food. Populations not only grew because of food, but also were spread out. Others regions such as the grasslands of “southeast Australia and New Zealand…the pampa…[and] the sertao” were exploited (Armesto 777). These regions were never before used, but now were almost a necessity. People wanted the sheep and cattle raised in these lands. Inventors had to find new ways to get the food from the prairies of America to their cities. The need to get this food sparked Industrial Revolution inventions and other techniques. Once the mass production of food took off, people started experimenting. Sylvester Graham made cereals, Baron Justus von Liebig, and the modern delicious sweet,chocolate, was made from a liquid to a cheap food (Armesto 780).Food production lead to the ability to experiment and try different things with food which is one of the leading characteristics of the Industrial Revolution, how to make things better and quicker.

French Revolution review

stevelev — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:31:55 +0000

My secondary source analysis is on Frenandez-Armesto’s excerpt on the French revolution, pages 757-761 in textbook. Armesto starts off talking about the invasion of the Bastille by revolutionaries on July 14,1789. He then works backward and briefly alludes to how the costs of war put the French government in debt and how this subsequently lead to the start of the revolution. Armesto talks about the Estates General and the poor peasantry that made up the group. The “Cahiers de Dolenaces”, books of grievances, are mentioned, but not defined or thoroughly explained. Armesto does talk about the shift from the Estates general to the national assembly and their Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. When talking about the revolutionaries, Armesto solely focuses on the religious reforms. He talks about the nationalization of the Church and the overhaul of the King and others who rejected the new reforms. Armesto goes on to talk,seemingly unnecessarily, about Citizen Slade and his formation of sadism. Finally, Armesto briefly mentions Napoleon and how he affected the whole world through his battles.

Armesto provides causes for the revolution and is able to accomplish his argument in just four pages. Starting off, Armesto mentions the short-term political and economic causes. Politically, he explains how the summoning of the Estates General for the first time since 1614 and more specifically, the representation brought power away from the king and more to the people. The peasants were mad at the king and now had say politically. Economically, Armesto talks about how the revolutionary war drained up the national treasury. France was now a nation in high debt. To make up for the debts, the government decided to “increase tax yields” (Armesto 758). This certainly dialer up the citizens and help cause the revolution. As for his argument, Armesto argues that individuals and small groups of people were not at the forefront of the revolution. He successfully backs this up by providing a good summary of the revolution by only mentioning King Louis XVI once. Also, Armesto’s decisions to not talk about Jacques Necker, the Girondists, or the Jacobins helps further prove his argument. The most important individual in the French Revolution, Napoleon, is mentioned but not to an excessive degree. Armesto only mentions individuals when he has to in order to accentuate a point, but does not focus on them. He was able to be persuasive in arguing that the study of individuals is not pertinent to understanding the French Revolution. Armesto is able to make and assert his argument because of his teaching degree and his prestigious job at The University of Notre Dame.

Armesto did not do a good job highlighting the major eras, individuals, and developments of the revolution. Armesto never once talks of eras in the revolution. Instead he just talks of the revolution in chronological order by year. Such as talking about the national assemblies reforms in “1790 and 1791″ (Armesto 758). He never hints at these years being labeled with a certain title. In fact, Armesto does not even talk about Napoleon’s reign as the era of Napoleon. As for individuals, Armesto only speaks of Louis XVI, the king at the start of the revolution, once. While talking about causes of the revolution, Armesto fails to talk of how individual enlightenment thinkers help start the revolution. Armesto overall does a poor job highlighting the key individuals of the Revolution. When talking about the developments of the French Revolution and the overall aftermath, he does a poor job. He does not go into any detail about the developments of the revolution by simply stating the National Assembly came to be and Napoleon rose to power by an unexplained and undefined “military coup” (Armesto 759). Overall, Armesto does not do a good job explaining or mentioning many pertinent eras, individuals, and developments of the French Revolution.

Final Research Question

stevelev — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:08:25 +0000

How did the slave trade affect the Gold Coast, Bight of Benin, and the Bight of Biafra politically, socially and economically?

My research question really changed. At first I was going to discuss how the areas affected the slave trade, but now I am going to discuss how the slave trade affected the region. The sources I will use will most likely by a book that I found on the subject and multiple internet sources on these regions.

Research Questions

stevelev — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:42:28 +0000

Question #1- How did the political, social, and economic differences between the Gold Coast, Bight of Benin, and the Bight of Biafra affect the regions role in trans-Atlantic slave trading.

Explanation: While reading the document I was very intrigued by the differences in the regions of Africa. The chapter on regionalism fueled my original intrigue to form a research question that incorporated different parts of the regionalism section in it.

Question #2- How did native African’s as a whole benefit from the slave trade?

Explanation: This question may seem strange, but after reading Armesto and parts of the packet, many examples were given as to how Africans benefited from the slave trade, both the merchants and the actual slaves themselves. This paper would come under much scrutiny, but I feel like it would be fun to do.

Review of Alfred Crosby

stevelev — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:16:33 +0000

Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism: The Overseas Migration of Western Europeans As a Biological Phenomenon pages 55-67 discusses the dominate take over of white Europeans in certain areas. He notes that the European’s conquering in Canada, the United States, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, known as the Lands of the Demographic Takeover, was not just “militarily, economically, and technologically”, but also a demographic take over. Crosby then speaks of other examples, India,Nigeria,Mexico,Peru, and South Africa, where Europeans were able to invade these countries and control them militarily, economically, and technologically, but never able to take them over demographically. The question then arises: Why did the Europeans triumph demographically in some lands and fail in others. This question would provide a stunning historical breakthrough of why some people were taken over and what factors contributed to the aboriginal populations that made them susceptible to a demographic overhaul. For example, the native Americans were taken over by the Europeans and soon after became demographic minorities in their own land! While on the other hand the Bantu people of South Africa were not taken over by these Europeans demographically and are currently the overwhelming majority in their native land. The essence of the question is to distinguish between these people ands why some groups were able to be made the minority.

Crosby first states that in order to explain the demographic takeovers, the argument must explain two phenomena. First, why the “demoralization of he aboriginal populations of Canada, the United States, Argentina, and others” occurred, and secondly explain why the “European way of manipulating the environment” worked in the Lands of the Demographic Takeover. He than refutes common explanations such as the superior iron technologies of the Bantu people saying that there was little difference between an iron spear blade and a stone spear blade when it comes to fighting the muskets of the Europeans. Crosby then provides an explanation of his own, animals. The section on animals starts off talking about the take over of quadrupeds that were only found in Europe, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. Prior to “first contact with the Europeans”, the new lands had none of these animals. The natives animals of the land that had long roamed free without any predators, were attacked by “Old World dogs gone wild.” These animals, just as the settlers, experienced a huge population boom and were herded all across these new lands. One example of the population explosions would be Australia in 1788. A few months after the settlers arrived with these animals, two cows and four bulls had escaped. “By 1804, the wild herds they founded numbered from three to five thousand head!” In New Zealand, the animals had no naturally predators and thrived better than people did. In 1840, New Zealand had 250,000 sheep yet in 1989, “New Zealand has over 55 million sheep, about twenty times more sheep then people.” These animals provided everything for their European owners, food, leather, fiver, power and wealth. The animals assured the Europeans almost automatic success because of their many uses. The honeybee also added a demoralizing effect to the native people. The natives associated these bees with their foreign invaders and whenever they saw honeybees approaching they considered it “an omen of the white man’s approach…[that] spreads sadness and consternation.” While all these animals were being brought upon the people from Europe, very few native animals were sent to Europe for they were not desired nor needed. Varmints also had a surprisingly large impact on the Lands of Demographic takeover as well. Rats traveled aboard European ships and reeked havoc on these new lands repopulating as quickly as cattle. Rats tormented South America in the late 1500s and completely replaced the local rats in New Zealand. These varmints, although not as useful as the quadrupeds, had a significant impact in the new lands. As with cattle, and other classes of organisms “the exchange has been largely a one-way street”, Europe bringing and the new lands receiving.

I personally liked Crosby’s argument and think it systematically made sense. He covers all areas of life in his argument, humans, animals, plants, and microscopic organisms. The section on animals was very persuasive, but focused much more on answering the first phenomena. The article just gives examples of European take overs by animals but does not explain how or why it was significant. He does make a nice concise argument that overall touches on every point in his thesis and question.

Wikipedia draft

stevelev — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:37:59 +0000

{Unreferenced|date=May 2009}}

The ”’Great Fire of Warwick”’ was a major conflagration that swept through the small town of [[Warwick]], [[England], beginning at 2:00 p.m. on September 5, 1694 and lasting for six hours.The fire started from a spark of a torch that was being carried up High Street. The town’s small population, close-packed nature of the environment, and the amount of combustible building material all lead to the fire’s start and spread, and the limited fire-fighting methods of the time, helped transform the small torch fire into a catastrophic event. Borsay, Peter, Mr., and Lindsay Proudfoot. Provincial Towns In Early Modern England And Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Books.Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://books.google.com/

== Damage ==

The [[Collegiate Church of St Mary, Warwick]] was severely damaged by the fire. The fire progressed through the streets of Castle, Market, and High until it was halted by the 0.5 [[metre]] thick stone walls of the building that {{As of|2006|lc=on}} is the [[Lord Leycester hotel|Lord Leycester Hotel]] on Jury street. Had the fire not been stopped by the church and struck the suburbs, it would have hit the area where agriculture was prominent. The original estimates had the financial damage totaling around ₤90000-₤120000 and the physical damage at around 250-460 homes, but later the Book of Estimates had the damage at 157 houses totaling between ₤40000-₤60000. Borsay, Peter, Mr., and Lindsay Proudfoot. Provincial Towns In Early Modern England And Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Books. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://books.google.com/

== Effects of the Fire on Architecture ==

The Great Fire of Warwick made builders review the way they constructed buildings. The Fire Act of 1694 established new rules and regulations on architecture. The Act stated that public streets and roads should all be made a certain regulated width. Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. It also provided regulations for a standard house design: two storeys of 10 feet in height each with cellars and garrets. This gave the town of Warwick symmetry, uniformity, and a new flare. The fire caused an urban design revolution of sorts. The post-fire homes in Warwick also got ride of the jetted façade and the concept of timber-framed construction in which floors of buildings overhung each other. Borsay, Peter, Mr., and Lindsay Proudfoot. Provincial Towns In Early Modern England And Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Books.Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://books.google.com/ . The town gave compensation to those whose property was destroyed by the street widening process just so that the Fire Act rules would be followed.

The beautiful post-fire buildings are credited to Francis and William Smith. Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/ In 1695, William was appointed as the surveyor for the fire council. Although he was officially appointed just to follow the councils orders, William took some direction to oversee the rebuilding himself. William throughout his life had a lasting legacy on Warwick, twice serving as the city’s mayor from 1713-1714 and 1728-1729. Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/ ref> Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/ Francis joined his brother in the reconstruction of St. Marys Church but later became a succesful architect overseeing the project of the new court-house. Francis also had a lasting impact on the city. Francis served on the Town Corporation in the 1720s and was the head of Maintenance during the 1730s until his death in 1738. The Smith brothers had a lasting legacy on the new and beautiful architecture of Warwick and passed on the tradition of architecture to their sons Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26 Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/

== Notes ==

Borsay, Peter, Mr., and Lindsay Proudfoot. Provincial Towns In Early Modern

England And Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Books.

Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

books?id=8uR_ejvfFx4C&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=fire+of+warwick+1694&source=bl&ots=KL

BlRGKpyw&sig=q3awN4IWHUp0B2143TK0h4zBw1Y&hl=en&ei=XUJfS5K2NIrUNa7k-OYL&sa=X&oi=bo

ok_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=fire%20of%20warwick%2016

94&f=false>.

Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26

Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

coventrytimes/features/

tm_headline=grand-designs&method=full&objectid=20014346&siteid=50003-name_page.ht

ml>.

== Further reading ==

* {{cite web|

url=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobjay99/gfw.htm|

title=The Great Fire of Warwick|

author=}}

* {{cite book|

title=The Great fire of Warwick: 1694: the records of the commissioners appointed under an act of Parliament for rebuilding the town of Warwick|

author=Michael Farr|

publisher=Hertford: Dugdale Society|

year=1992|

isbn=0-85220-069-2}}

* {{cite journal|

title=A County Town in Transition: The Great Fire of Warwick, 1694|

author=Peter Borsay|

journal=Proceedings of the British Academy|

url=http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/src/pbaindex/pba108.html|

volume=108|

pages=151–170|

format=subscription required}}

[[Category:Fires in England]]

[[Category:History of Warwickshire]]

[[Category:1694 in England]]

[[Category:Warwick]]

[[Category:1694 disasters]]

Wikipedia Citation Draft

stevelev — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:23:51 +0000

Book:

Borsay, Peter, Mr., and Lindsay Proudfoot. Provincial Towns In Early Modern
England And Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Google Books.
Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

Website:

Evans, Lisa. www.iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk. Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited, 26
Oct. 2007. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.