To say the least, Industrialization is one of the most significant (and therefore highly tested) topics in world history. Let the games begin!
For the question on page 407, "How might the social and political backgrounds of the United States and Russia have affected their industrial development?" I was a little bit confused on what the question meant by social and political backgrounds.
For my answers, I had:
- United States:
- civil war
- political stability lead to the US being a leading power
- their industrialization was linked to Europe
- less direct government involvement
- government controlled industrialization
Are these the right type of answers, or did I understand the question wrong?
Hi! I was also a little confused on this question, but if it helps, here's what I put:
-Generally Eastern Christian Orthodox
-Reliance on serfdom
-Reliance on slavery
Sorry me again, but I forgot to add:
Russia - had established two vastly separated social classes; russian gov. autonomous
U.S - comes with american equality ideals; people have a political plug
Okay guys, you are coming up with characteristics of the two states, but this is a causation question. So which of these effected the course (playing out of) industrialization in each place. Try starting out on the other end of the question by characterizing each process of industrialization. How were they the same and different? Then look back at some of these social and political characteristics. Could any of them plausibility explain how industrialization happened in each place?
390- "In what ways did the Industrial Revolution mark a sharp break with the past? In what ways did it continue earlier patterns?"
For this question I only got one continuity and I feel there are more (I am uncertain with even this one). I put "continued pattern of population growth". Did anyone else get other answers?
Nobody's helping you. Shame on them!
I am not completely sure about these answers but for continuities, I think that discovering new technology is a continuity, and maybe having a lot of resources leads to more success (but I think that is too obvious).
In terms of older patterns, patriarchy persisted. Social inequality continued, becoming more pronounced (sharper). Ties between different parts of the world continued to strengthen.
On page 397, is the first paragraph explaining a change in middle-class society or is it just explaining what the middle class was like?
It's what changes occurred in middle-class society
402- "In what situations would the ideas of Karl Marx have the most appeal among the lower classes"
In this question, how did you guys interpret "situations"? I am not quite sure what it is asking.
Situations: like circumstances. Your go-to should be the themes. Economic situations such as farming, etc.
I also wondered about this, but I took it as the living conditions and general life of the Industrial Revolution.
I have that:
- Marx's idea that capitalism was unstable was supported by the poor living conditions of the working class
- The wealth that the revolution brought made Marx's idea of redistribution of wealth viable
@Callisto: Okay, but you're being vague. How about longer hours and dangerous working conditions?
Your 2nd part is fine, but you guys need to learn to answer questions in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the topic. redistribution of wealth is your term, not Marx's. He called for a "classless" society. The wealth gap would make that more appealing to the working classes.
393- "Drawing on your prior knowledge about Europe. explain why historians might consider Europe an unlikely place for the Industrial Revolution to have begun?"
I am also a bit confused about this question. It asks why Europe is an unlikely place but the text around it just explains why it did happen here. Should we think about Europe before the Industrial Revolution?
It was unlikely because Islam, India, and China were wealthy, technologically advanced societies at the time - compared to Europe. One would have guessed that the IR would have happened in one of those places before they guessed Europe.
Also, long distance trade (and all the goodies that come with it) was passing Europe by.
Plus, Europeans were politically fragmented and frequently invaded.
For the question, "How does this image illustrate the social and economic changes that took place during the Industrial Revolution?" we were not sure how it shows social transformation. I thought it might be that the person in the middle shows how the middle class became more successful and the workers show that the lower class have worse working conditions, but I wanted to check on here.
Glad to help. You guys are on your own after today!
Socially, this image shows workers risking their health for a likely low-paying job making coal gas, characteristic of the increasing economic stratification that accompanied industrialization.
Economically, this image demonstrates one of the major shifts of the industrial period: from agriculture to mechanized mining and its products, in this case coal.
On page 405, "What aspects of the Industrial Revolution facilitated the migration of Europeans to other parts of the world?", I listed the pushes (factories displacing peasant farmers, poverty and poor urban living conditions, and growing population) and the railroads and steamships providing cheap/fast transport. I was wondering if anyone had any other answers?
The only other answer I got besides the ones you listed is that workers were pulled by demand for labor overseas.
on page 449, i got these points for the effects of imperialism on asian and african societies. i feel like it could be condensed more, or that some points may be unnecessary.
- societies lose all political sovereignty
- racial hierarchy introduced to societies
- daily life transformed by western government and technology
- rebellions erupt in colonized societies
- opportunities for elite and western-educated
below are my points on the effects on imperialism on Asian/African societies:
- European racism and racial divide
- natural resources lead to large European settler population = closer proximity of different races (i.e., South Africa's mining)
- daily life affected by Western governing (a point you already have)- i.e, public health/sanitization, tax collecting bureaucracies
- counting and classification of subjects
- invention of tribe identities (the notion of "tribal" Africa)
- inferiority of women
- masculine colonized people recruited for military
On 442, the book asks "what caused the scramble for Africa?" I felt like this was a really broad question that the book doesn't provide many answers that I could find, so I was wondering if other people had any ideas.
Here's what I had, I'm not sure if all of these answer the question:
Intensity of European rivalries
Belief that it was the natural order for Europeans to dominate savage peoples
Growing military might of Europe
Yeah, this one is tricky (and kinda stupid) because there is only one universal answer for all the examples of imperialism given in this chapter. But it IS very telling, and the overarching idea Strayer wants you to take away from this chapter. Here is what I wrote in my notes last summer: The scramble for Africa occurred because of intense rivalries among European states. And there you have it - nationalism, patriarchy, militarism, and greed. It's all there, along, of course, with testosterone.
I'm going to take this down if I don't see a wider group of people posting. I hate lurkers!
You know how this works. It is NOT just about asking questions, it is also about answering the questions of others. And then engaging in a back and forth with other people about correct or incorrect answers - and why they are correct/incorrect.