Critical Questions

1. Compare/contrast the key ideologies of the European Renaissance and that of imperialism and decolonization and how they affected and were based off of one another.
2. Explain the change over time of the key ideologies from the European Renaissance to the decolonization movement and the causal necessities for such changes.

French Revolution ID Terms

Directory – The Directory was a group of 12 men who basically took on the responsibilities of the Committee of Public Safety after the Reign of Terror. They were created in 1795 and lasted until 1799 when Napolean Bonaparte took over and the Revolution was ended. They were the last governing body of France before Napolean and the last governing body during the French Revolution. Robespierre was a major voice of the Directory. SB

Committee of Public Safety – The Committee of Public Safety was instated in 1793 when France launched a preemptive attack upon Prussia and was, in turn, attacked by Austria. They were the major governing body during the Reign of Terror and were responsible for the “trials” and executions of thousands during the period. SB

Marie Antoinette – Marie Antoinette was the last French queen, the wife of King Louis XVI. She was actually a duchess from Prussia who was married to Louis XVI at the age of 14 in a political marriage to unite the Prussian and French (Bourbon) royal families. She came to symbolize the lavish and uncaring extravagance of the elite while the poor working classes were starving outside the gates of Versailles. She was later beheaded by guillotine after she was found guilty of treason (passing along information to familial allies in Prussia). SB

Declaration of Pillnitz – This was a statement issued by the kings of Prussia and Austria, against whom the French were at war, as an invitation to other nations in Europe to join in attacking the French revolution. SB

Tennis Court Oath – During the Estates-General called together by Louis XVI, the First and Second Estates held most of the power despite consisting of only the clergy and the nobility which made up only 3% of the population. The Third Estate, being the common people who made up 97% of the population of France, was, relatively not able to represent themselves considering they could be outvoted by 2-1. On June 20, 1789, the Third Estate came to meet at the Estates-General and found the doors locked. They construed this as the king was forbidding them to meet, and so they moved to a nearby tennis court and made an oath that they would stay together until they had created a new constitution. They wanted to rationally reform the government, following in the ideology of the Enlightenment Era. SB

Bourgeoisie – The bourgeoisie were the French middle and upper classes in the Third Estate who wanted an end to the concept of the other estates having all the power and privileges. The bourgeoisie represented the moderate voices during the French Revolution and were represented by delegates in both the Estates-General and the National Assembly. SB

Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” Questions

1. The “invisible hand,” one of the key concepts of Adam Smith’s entire philosophy, was basically the assertion that self-interest is a major motivator of social progression. Smith argues that inviduals pursue their selfish interests in furthering their own economic stautus, and, inadvertently, end up helping the society and the society’s economy as a whole. So Smith basically states that the “invisible hand” of self-interest is what guides people to advance their own economic standing, leading to advances in the economies of societies overall.
2. Smith believed that money, without the involvement of the government, would flow naturally to the people who were best able to benefit or exploit it. He believed that since people would always strive to better their own economic conditions, the capital which is not regulated by the government would go automatically to the most productive.
3. Smith based his philosophies and arguments off of logic, which was a key idea of the Enlightenment Era. His thoughts on government involvement also reflected the values of breaking with organized institutions, and he, overall, being a Scottish philosopher, represented many of the Enlightenment ideals.
4. The division of labor is splitting up work that is necessary among people with different skill sets. The idea that a group of people, each with separate abilities, would be able to produce more together is the cornerstone of the division of labor proposed by Smith.
5. In his argument, he says that if people with different abilites each complete a different part of the process of making a pin, then there would be more pins produced as a total. Each person, completing a different part, would not be able to make pins on their own since their training only covered specific parts of the process.
6. The pin factory, utilizing the division of labor, produces 12 pounds of pins in a day. Divided among the workers, each hired man should have been able to produce 4800 pins per day. However, in reality, alone, the people could not produce even 20 pins in a day. Therefore, Smith used this as evidence that the division of labor truly increased productivity.
7. The division of labor allowed for people with specialized skills to increase productivity by working a team.

Casual Factors of the Industrial Revolution

Question: “Explain the important preconditions and precipitating factors that brought about the Industrial Revolution. Which of the causal factors of the Industrial Revolution was the most significant?”

The Industrial Revolution was a period in human history characterized by a marked interest in the exploitation of the planet’s natural resources in order to sustain humanity’s rapid population growth and progressively advance commercial output. The increase in the sheer numbers of people provided the impetus to push for alternative sources of energy. While this population growth should have been a clear target for global disease, favorable trends in the health aspect allowed for a brief respite from the pandemics of disease. However, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, with crowded people and long-range communication improvements, influenza, cholera, dysentery, typhus, and tuberculosis began to break out among the people. However, their impacts were not enough to significantly impede the growth of the population during the Industrial Revolution. Also, as a result of this population growth, people were forced to formulate more efficient and practical methods of manufacturing, bringing about the creations of new industrial technologies, such as steel plows, railways, and grain mills and elevators. These new technologies allowed people to overcome the famines which resulted from population overgrowth and crop failures, as with the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1846. Overall, the marked population growth was the most significant causal factor of the Industrial Revolution, providing a catalyst for food shortages and, subsequently, forcing them to formulate better methods, through systematic advances in food planning, production, and preservation, as well as scientific solutions, to accommodate for  such difficulties.

Secondary Source Evaluation – The French Revolution

The French Revolution, being one of the most influential and impacting events in human history, has been extensively researched and documented by authoritative sources which provide reliable and valid information about both its causes and effects. One such source, Prentice Hall’s World History: Connections to Today by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, presents the facts of the French Revolution in a clear narrative which provides a cause-and-effect overview of the beginnings of the revolution through the end of the Napoleanic era. Beginning by explaining the anger and dissent among the people as the major casual factor in igniting the revolution itself, the source delves deeper into the social hierarchy and the estate system which forced only the Third Estate, consisting of the majority of the population (bourgeoisie) excepting the nobility and the clergy, to pay taxes to maintain the luxuries the First and Second Estates enjoyed. By explaining the miserable working conditions and the resentment that the Third Estate felt for the “privileges enjoyed by their social ‘betters'” (481), this source provides an understanding of the social context which sparked the beginnings of the revolution. This chapter also explained the causes of the Revolution in terms of social, political, and economic categories, explaining the social dissent, the deficit spending of the higher classes, and the failure of the nobility to reform. After providing an in-depth analysis of the causes of the French Revolution, the source then progresses to the chain of events which led up to the start of the Napoleanic era in a narrative and chronologically advancing method, which allows to follow the logical pattern of actions which led up to the circumstances allowing for Napolean’s rise to power. Beginning with the storming of the Bastille and the revolts of the peasants along the countryside, the authors continue to build up the background of the public dissent with the nobility, finally snapping with the worst famine which sent the peasants over the edge into full-blown fury at the nobles who continued to try to “reimpose medieval dues” (484). Following this, the only logical next step would be for the people to overthrow the existing hierarchy and impose their own form of government, which is how the source explains the National Assembly’s decisions to end the privileges of the nobility. However, even while providing a broad overview of the entire Revolution, the source also provides specific foci upon important players in the Revolution such as the role of women in the reforms and the fates of the noble family of Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI. Providing a brief summary on their important, the source continues rather rapidly to the wars waged at home by the Jacobins in demanding a republic and the wars declared abroad upon Austria, Prussia, Britain, and other states. The source then talks about the downfall of the monarchy and the creation of yet another constitution in retaliation. After explaining the conditions which led up to the events, the source then introduces Napolean Bonaparte as “the man from Corsica” who would come “to dominate France and Europe” (494). The people are shown to strongly support the military victories and reforms under the Napoleanic Code based off of Enlightenment principles. After briefly chronicling the successes of Naploean as a self-made emperor, the source launches directly into the circumstances which caused the downfall of Napolean, including his defeats against the Spanish guerrilla warfare as well as his final loss in Russia with his entire army hungry and cold as winter befell them. At the very end of the chapter on the French Revolution, the source provides a brief encapsulation of the legacy the revolution and the Napoleanic era left behind for the France and Europe with the Congress of Vienna and revolutionary ideals which continued after the events themselves. 

This source, being my primary reading on the French Revolution, was difficult to analyze for full coverage of the entire topic of the era since I did not actually have full knowledge of the period. However, in comparison to the outline presented which laid out the basic framework of the period, this source did present a relatively encompassing explanation and narrative of the circumstances of the era. This source did an excellent job with presenting the information and facts in a casual method, which followed a logical pattern of progression, allowing the reader to truly understand the reasons behind the actions and events and why they occurred in the way they did. While simultaneously providing necessary background information for the narrative style used in the descriptions, the source provided a very understandable advancement of events to explain the causes and effects of the French Revolution and the Napoleanic era. The transitions between events were smooth and logically coherent. 

The textbook source was assumed to contain factual evidence which was supported by previous research. However, one major drawback of the credibility of the entire source was the distinct lack of footnotes or external reference put into the passages. While, having been published by a verifiable and credible source, the information was assumably reliable, external references in the passages themselves would have allowed the readers to cross-reference the facts presented and draw their own conclusions from the sources that this secondary source drew upon. However, the narrative style of writing and logical pattern of progression was a refreshing change from the specific details of Armesto despite the lack of sources which Armesto usually presents as “Further Reading” in his chapters. Overall, this source did provide information about the French Revolution and Napoleanic era in a logical manner which compared well with the points outlined as being essential to the reader’s understanding of the period.

Trans-Atlantic Slavery Research Topics (Refined)

• Through which social structures and features were societies in Africa able to rebound from the population decrease by the Atlantic slave trade in the late 17th century?

This question is much more focused on a particular aspect of the effects of the European slave trade on Africa, specifically on the society of the people they impacted. A time period is now also specified allowing for much more detailed research in a very concentrated field of study. Hopefully, if possible, accounts from African people (translated perhaps) as well as accounts from Europeans and statistics may help me write this paper with fluidity and comprehensibility. Discussing perhaps gender roles and how they were affects may be a large subsection of this topic.

• How did the political, social, and economic landscapes of different regions of origin of particular African slaves play a role in their subsequent enslavement and transfer to the New World in the late ?

While this is still a rather broad topic of consideration, the breakdown into the categories of politics, society, and economy will possibly allow for some research about the background of the regions and perhaps how they played a role in slave actions. I would only choose around three to four particular regions to analyze for this, however, because of the nature of the question, this may be manipulated. I believe sources from slaves (hopefully if translations can be found), as well as accounts from European slave traders may be studied in conjunction with statistics about the exports of slaves from particular regions.

Trans-Atlantic Slavery Potential Research Topics

• Through which political, social, and economic structures and features were societies in Africa able to rebound from the population decrease by the Atlantic slave trade?

This would allow for a discussion about the political, social, and economic landscapes in Africa as well as how they were affected by the European slave trade. The change over time may also be discussed as the way society adapted to allow survival in the face of slave trade. 

• How did the region of origin of particular African slaves play a role in their subsequent enslavement and transfer to the New World? 

This would allow for discussion about the different regions of Africa and which parts which were found to be profitable by Europeans. This may also include a political, social, and economic profile of the different regions which may have been catalysts for particular slave actions.

Ecological Imperialism by Alfred Crosby

During the era of discovery and exploration of the New World, European settlers and pioneers comandeered the largest demographic and agricultural integrations the world has ever seen. Through his chapter titled Ecological Imperialism: The Overseas Migration of Western Europeans as a Biological Phenomenon, Alred Crosby attempts to explain and elaborate upon the nature of the presence of European foreigners in the New World and the wider scope of effects this presence had upon the environment and the demographic landscape of the Americas.

Crosby credits demographic takeover by rapid population growth of the Europeans due to “immigration, increased life span, and maintaining very high birth rates.” Through intermarriage and cultural integration, Crosby argues that European presence became stable and solidified in the New World while the destroying the structure and demographic landscape of the aboriginal people already there. Through “decimation and demoralization of the aboriginal populations of Canada, the United States, Argentina, and others”, European foreign presence became a force in the New World and changed the population balance for future years, a trend which still continues today where the natives of the Americas have become “small minorities in their homelands and sometimes no more than relict populations.”

However, the demography of the New World was not the only major factor which was affected by the foreign intrusion upon the native lands. In fact, weeds, defined as “any type of plant which… spreads rapidly and outcompetes others on bare, disturbed soil”, were yet another factor of the full integration, or, according to Crosby, takeover of the New World. In the case of the overtake of invasive flora, European weeds became an aggresive nuisance which thrived in areas with the same type of climate as that left behind in Europe. Therefore, Crosby’s characterization of the the demographic and environmental integration of the Europeans as a “takeover” is fully justified. The climatic similarities between the European environment left behind and that of the New World allowed for the viabilty of European animals, weeds, and pathogens. However, overall, by detrimentally modifying the stucture of the aboriginal population of the Americas and causing even more destruction through their introduction of weeds, disease-causing pathogens which harmed both plants and animals alike, European assimilation into the New World was not an straightfoward process, on the contrary it can truly only be classified as a “takeover”

Partition of Bengal (1947) FIRST DRAFT

The Partition of Bengal in 1947, part of the Partition of India, was a partition that divided the British Indian province of Bengal between India and Pakistan, with West Bengal becoming a province of India and East Bengal becoming a province of Pakistan. The partition, with the power transferred officially to Pakistan and India on August 14-15, 1947, was done according to what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. India’s freedom on August 15, 1947 ended almost 350 years of British prescence in the Indian subcontinent. East Bengal, which became a province of Pakistan according to the provisions set forth the Mountbatten Plan, later became the independent country of Bangladesh after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.

Background

In 1905, the first partition in Bengal was implemented as an administrative preference, making governing the two provinces, West and East Bengal easier. While the partition split the province between West, in which the majority was Hindu, and the East, where the majority was Muslim, the 1905 Partion of Bengal left considerable minorities of Hindus in East Bengal and Muslims in the West Bengal. While the Muslims were in favor of this partition, due to thier obtainment of their own province, Hindus were not. This controversary led to increased violence and protest and, in 1911, the two provinces were once again united.

However, the disagreements between Hindus and Muslims in Bengal which had sparked the Partition of Bengal in 1905 still remained and laws, including the Partition of Bengal in 1947, had to be implemented in order to fulfill the political needs of the parties involved.

The Partition

As per the plan, on 20 June, 1947, the members of the Bengal Legislative Assembly cast three separate votes on the proposal to partition Bengal:

1. In the joint session of the house, comprising of all the members of the Assembly, the division of the joint session of the House stood at 126 votes against and 90 votes for joining the present Constituent Assembly (i.e, India)
2. Then the members of the Muslim-majority areas of Bengal in a separate session passed a motion by 106-35 votes against partitioning Bengal and instead joining a new Constituent Assembly (i.e, Pakistan) as a whole.
3. This was followed by the separate meeting of the members of the non-Muslim-majority areas of Bengal who by a division of 58-21 voted for partition of the province.

Under the Mountbatten Plan, a single majority vote in favour of partition by either notionally divided half of the Assembly would have decided the division of the province, and hence the house proceedings on 20 June resulted in the decision to partition Bengal. This set the stage for the creation of West Bengal as a province of the Union of India and East Bengal as a province of the Dominion of Pakistan.

Also in accordance with the Mountbatten Plan, in a referendum held on 7 July, the electorate of Sylhet gave a verdict in favor of joining East Bengal. Further, the Boundary Commission headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe decided on the territorial demarcation between the two newly created provinces. The power was finally officially transferred to Pakistan and India on 14 and 15 August, respectively, under the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan in 1955, and became the independent nation of Bangladesh after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971.

The Aftermath

The second partition of Bengal left behind a legacy of violence which continues to this day. As Bashabi Fraser put it, “There is the reality of the continuous flow of ‘economic migrants’ / ‘refugees’ / ‘infiltrators’ / ‘illegal immigrants’ who cross over the border and pan out across the sub-continent, looking for work and a new home, setting in metropolitan centres as far off as Delhi and Mumbai, keeping the question of the Partition alive today. “

Bibliography

Bashabi Fraser Bengal Partition Stories: An Unclosed Chapter. New York: Anthem Press, 2008. ISBN 1843312999

Joya Chatterji Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ISBN 0521411289

S.M. Ikram Indian Muslims and Partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 1992. ISBN 8171563740

Hashim S. Raza Mountbatten and the partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 1989. ISBN 8171560598

Craig Baxter Bangladesh: From a Nation to a State. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. ISBN 0813328543

Singh, J.J. “Partition of India: British Proposal Said to be Only Feasible Plan Now.” The New York Times 15 Jun. 1947: E8

Sources for Wikipedia Article

Potential Bibliography Elements

Bashabi Fraser Bengal Partition Stories: An Unclosed Chapter. New York: Anthem Press, 2008. ISBN 1843312999

Joya Chatterji Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ISBN 0521411289

S.M. Ikram Indian Muslims and Partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 1992. ISBN 8171563740

Hashim S. Raza Mountbatten and the partition of India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 1989. ISBN 8171560598

Craig Baxter Bangladesh: From a Nation to a State. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. ISBN 0813328543

Potential Reference Sources

Singh, J.J. “Partition of India: British Proposal Said to be Only Feasible Plan Now.” The New York Times 15 Jun. 1947: E8