1) Compare the two “waves” of colonialism as described by Strayer.
The first wave of colonialism was when the Europeans arrived in the Americas. They did not mean to "discover" the Americas because it happened on accident. Christopher Columbus was actually looking for India to get spices. Hence why they called the Native Americans, Indians.The second wave of European colonialism commenced Britain’s involvement in Asia with the support of the East India Company. Other countries such as France, Portugal and the Netherlands also had involvement in European expansion in Asia. The wave also consisted of the Scramble for Africa which was organized through the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885. The conference was established to divide Africa among the European powers. Vast regions of Africa were given to Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and Spain which gives insight to Africa’s post-colonial diversity. The first wave of European expansion was exploring the world to find new revenue and perpetuating European feudalism. Whereas the second wave focused on developing the mercantile capitalism system, the manufacturing industry in Europe, and solidified all capitalistic endeavors through the rising of new markets and raw materials.
2) What was the “Scramble for Africa” and why have some African nations still not recovered from it?
The "Scramble for Africa" was the invasion, occupation, division, colonization and annexation of African territory by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914. In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it had increased to 90 percent of the continent, with only Ethiopia (Abyssinia), the Dervish state (present-day Somalia) and Liberia still being independent. The Berlin Conference of 1884, which regulated European colonization and trade in Africa, is usually referred to as the starting point of the scramble for Africa. Consequent to the political and economic rivalries among the European empires in the last quarter of the 19th century, the partitioning of Africa was how the Europeans avoided warring amongst themselves over Africa. The latter years of the 19th century saw the transition from "informal imperialism", by military influence and economic dominance, to direct rule, bringing about colonial imperialism. This caused Africa to be economically underdeveloped because they grew dependent on European control. It also divided Africa internally for bringing in white superiority.
3) Should the United States continue to celebrate Columbus Day? Why or why not? If it’s helpful, you may reference a system of ethical values such as the Hallmarks in your answer.
No the US should not continue to celebrate Columbus Day. The Native Americans were content with life before he came to the Americas. He completely dismantled their lives and brought slavery to the Americas. Also you can't discover a place that already has people. Columbus Day is not something that should be celebrated. Instead we should celebrate the lives of the indigenous people that suffered from the white mans take over. We have enough holidays celebrating white men and there achievements. The indigenous people deserve to be celebrated. Their culture was beautiful and when the Europeans came a lot of that culture died. It was a cultural genocide. Celebrating Columbus day is like saying that genocide was okay.
4) Ultimately, the Americas are better off because of the European colonization that began in the late 1400s. Is this a true statement? Why or why not? Well if you give America a 1st glance this is true. America is one of the most powerful countries in the world. It offers a home to those who feel like they are outcasted else where. Sadly if you look closer, America is broke. Our government went 10 steps forward by electing Obama as the 1st black president but the election of Trump just sent us right back. Trump openly advocates hate and a lot of his supporters are very hatful people. He has support from the KKK and the neo-nazi group, Alt-right. I feel like America would have been better of if the Europeans never came. The Natives had a nice way of life before the Europeans came. Who are we to say that there way of life was lacking compared to European way of life. Of course many will say America is better with the European involvement but that is all we know. We don't know life out of this eurocentric bubble. Now people may have seen Native life as simple and not as advanced but that doesn't mean it was worse off.
5) What were some of the factors that escalated regional conflict into World War during the 20thcentury?
- system of alliances
- colonial powers brought colonies
- industrial weapon development
6) Why was the 20th Century considered a “century of crisis” for Europe?
A lot of bad things happened during this time. Such as things like the depression, the holocaust, and rising rate of population. The holocaust is the most tragic things to happen in human history. About 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because a man name Hitler came into power. German was in a really fragile state after WW1 and Hitler knew how to manipulate that to his advantage. The Great Depressionwas an economic slump in North America, Europe, and other industrialized areas of the world that began in 1929 and lasted until about 1939. It was the longest and most severe depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. Even so some people say that the economic crisis of 2008 was worse. I found this very interesting because i was alive in 2008 and got to experience it. Now population rising does not seem like that big of a deal. Well it is. If population keeps rising that mean so does supply and demand. More people equals more stuff needed. Also it is hard to keep up sanitary habits in over populated populations. Not only that you have to have places for those people to live.
7) One could argue that, on a global scale, the Industrial Revolution was the most important event in human history. What are the facts that support this argument? Are they convincing? Why or why not?
The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the 18th to 19th centuries, was a period during which predominantly agrarian, rural societies in Europe and America became industrial and urban. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain in the late 1700s, manufacturing was often done in people’s homes, using hand tools or basic machines. Industrialization marked a shift to powered, special-purpose machinery, factories and mass production. The iron and textile industries, along with the development of the steam engine, played central roles in the Industrial Revolution, which also saw improved systems of transportation, communication and banking. While industrialization brought about an increased volume and variety of manufactured goods and an improved standard of living for some, it also resulted in often grim employment and living conditions for the poor and working classes.
8) 19th Century abolitionist Harriet Tubman, a black woman, will soon appear on the front of the US $20 bill, and Andrew Jackson will move to the back. Is this a historically appropriate change? Is it a change consistent with the Hallmarks of the SND? See article here: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/10-bill-hamilton-20-tubman/index.html
Andrew Jackson does not deserve to be the face of anything. Yes he was considered a "good" president. For doing things like becoming the first self-made man to become President of the United States.
He also supported the “common man” and felt that the government was only helping the rich people. He made America proud because he was the hero of the Battle of New Orleans. He took part in the Revolutionary War. He was a strong leader and caused the great expansion of the powers of the presidency. His firmness helped to postpone the civil war for thirty years by preventing South Carolina from dissolving the Union during the nullification crisis. All of these things are seen as advancements for America. Yes he did and was all these things, but he was also a murder. In 1830 Congress, urged on by President Andrew Jackson, passed the Indian Removal Act which gave the federal government the power to relocate any Native Americans in the east to territory that was west of the Mississippi River. This was called the Trail of Tears. Many Natives lost not only their land but their lives. This one moment in history overshadows every other thing he did. To me he is nothing but a killer. Now Harriet Tubman 100% deserves to be recognized. This woman risked her life to help others get out of slavery through the Underground Railroad and all she gets know for recognition is small segments in history text books. She deserves so much more than a few words. As a kid growing up al i saw was men dominating in everything. Even if they didn't deserve it. I never in my childhood got to see a strong woman get what she so rightly deserves. Andrew Jackson isn't even half the person Harriet Tubman was. He allowed death while she invited freedom. I say take him off the coin and put her on it instead. the second NDNU Hallmark is "We honor the dignity and sacredness of each person." Harriet followed this Hallmark while A. Jackson didn't even come close.
