Jean Im
The view of government differed in both countries of Europe and China. While the Chinese saw respect as a key importance for power, the Europeans thought otherwise.
In China, when a dynasty came to power, they followed the ways of the Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven taught the rulers how they should rule to continue their power throughout China. However, there was a cycle called the dynastic cycle, showing that many rulers failed with their task and showed the different stages when the dynasty began losing power.
Not only that, but they would get overthrown by other rulers who took their place. The new rulers where then known to have the Mandate of heaven, thus restarting the cycle if needed.
While the Chinese tried to respect and keep their power, the Europeans felt the government should gain respect by the people, not the other way around. The Europeans followed The Divine Rights of Kings which was the idea that God chose a certain family to rule their country. The rights stated that the king or ruler has the right to make any decisions necessary for the government. In addition, a king who tries to go against God’s will was disobeyed by his subjects and finally, monarchy was known as the most acceptable form of government.
Even though the two government styles were different, they two groups both felt that these rules given to them was a path they needed to follow to keep their power. Ultimately, their actions caused a negative or a more positive view on their government.
Human Life or Wealth?
Natasha Anbalagan
Thomas Mun sums up mercantilism as this, “...we must ever observe this rule: to sell more to strangers yearly than we consume of theirs in value.” The policy of mercantilism encouraged European nations to acquire as much land and resources as possible--at the expense of whole populations. While the policy of mercantilism was beneficial to the peoples and countries of Europe, those of Africa and North America were oppressed and experienced very little benefits. The unfair exchange of goods for disease, the environmental disadvantage of the natives, and mistreatment of natives are all reasons why mercantilism was not beneficial to both peoples of the New World and Old World.
There was an unfair exchange between the Natives and Europeans. The Natives received the short end of the stick. While the Europeans benefited with agricultural trade crops, the Natives were suffering from small pox and other diseases the Europeans brought. More than 90% of indigenous populations were killed by these foreign diseases brought after Columbus’s arrival. While these Natives were rapidly dying off, European populations thrived and grew since the crops rich in carbohydrates from the Americas prevented food shortages in Europe.
“History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments.." (Guns, Germs, Steel 25). The New World was rich in nutritious plants but not animals able to be domesticated. The Old World, in contrast, lacked the nutritious plants but had plentiful animals able to be domesticated. A setback to peoples in the Old World was that such close proximity to animals increased their chance of diseases. For example; small pox from cows, influenza from domestic birds, and bubonic plague from rats. This increased European infant mortality, and decreased life expectancy. But this European lifestyle had one benefit: their immune systems were strengthened. When Europeans traveled to the Americas, they carried with them all these diseases that the Natives of the New World had never seen. This difference of environment enabled Europeans to gain an advantage against the Natives.
All these disadvantages of the Natives ultimately lead to their oppression. They were forced to do manual labor under the encomienda system. These natives were worked to their deaths in dangerous mines and were abused by Spanish landlords. The Europeans also brought and enslaved Africans to work in ranches. The Africans were brought to the New World tightly packed in ships with other Africans. While on board, they were subject to cruel torture by the merchants and the presence of nasty diseases. About 20% of the Africans on board of a ship died due to harsh conditions. If, a slave survived, their life did not improve. They were sold to the highest bidder and lived on little food and forced to work long and hard.
Given all the cruelty the Natives and Africans endured, any possible benefit they received from the Europeans is outweighed by the suffering. The Natives did not need the Europeans domestic animals or crops to live happily while the same could not be said for Europeans. The high nutrient rich crops of the Americas was vital to the growth of European populations. Some of the greatest civilizations of the time were in the New World and they were brought down by a measly virus. That hardly benefited them.
Natasha Anbalagan
Thomas Mun sums up mercantilism as this, “...we must ever observe this rule: to sell more to strangers yearly than we consume of theirs in value.” The policy of mercantilism encouraged European nations to acquire as much land and resources as possible--at the expense of whole populations. While the policy of mercantilism was beneficial to the peoples and countries of Europe, those of Africa and North America were oppressed and experienced very little benefits. The unfair exchange of goods for disease, the environmental disadvantage of the natives, and mistreatment of natives are all reasons why mercantilism was not beneficial to both peoples of the New World and Old World.
There was an unfair exchange between the Natives and Europeans. The Natives received the short end of the stick. While the Europeans benefited with agricultural trade crops, the Natives were suffering from small pox and other diseases the Europeans brought. More than 90% of indigenous populations were killed by these foreign diseases brought after Columbus’s arrival. While these Natives were rapidly dying off, European populations thrived and grew since the crops rich in carbohydrates from the Americas prevented food shortages in Europe.
“History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments.." (Guns, Germs, Steel 25). The New World was rich in nutritious plants but not animals able to be domesticated. The Old World, in contrast, lacked the nutritious plants but had plentiful animals able to be domesticated. A setback to peoples in the Old World was that such close proximity to animals increased their chance of diseases. For example; small pox from cows, influenza from domestic birds, and bubonic plague from rats. This increased European infant mortality, and decreased life expectancy. But this European lifestyle had one benefit: their immune systems were strengthened. When Europeans traveled to the Americas, they carried with them all these diseases that the Natives of the New World had never seen. This difference of environment enabled Europeans to gain an advantage against the Natives.
All these disadvantages of the Natives ultimately lead to their oppression. They were forced to do manual labor under the encomienda system. These natives were worked to their deaths in dangerous mines and were abused by Spanish landlords. The Europeans also brought and enslaved Africans to work in ranches. The Africans were brought to the New World tightly packed in ships with other Africans. While on board, they were subject to cruel torture by the merchants and the presence of nasty diseases. About 20% of the Africans on board of a ship died due to harsh conditions. If, a slave survived, their life did not improve. They were sold to the highest bidder and lived on little food and forced to work long and hard.
Given all the cruelty the Natives and Africans endured, any possible benefit they received from the Europeans is outweighed by the suffering. The Natives did not need the Europeans domestic animals or crops to live happily while the same could not be said for Europeans. The high nutrient rich crops of the Americas was vital to the growth of European populations. Some of the greatest civilizations of the time were in the New World and they were brought down by a measly virus. That hardly benefited them.
Northern Renaissance vs Italian Renaissance
Rachael Kang
The Northern Renaissance was different from the Italian Renaissance from start to finish. Even though both were periods of rebirth in their regions, the type of rebirth and the cause of the rebirth is what differed. The Northern Renaissance started because of warfare, and caused all of society to better themselves, opposed to the Italian Renaissance, which began with an outcry for help and developed an individual’s status.
The Northern Renaissance’s “birth” took place because in the year 1494, a French King took the Italian throne in the north and launched an invasion, sweeping throughout the nation. Because of this sudden invasion, many Italian Renaissance artists, musician, philosophers and writers escaped the war by traveling up north. As these Renaissance men and women traveled, they took with them the Renaissance. The Renaissance spread throughout the North as a wild fire would on a field of untouched grass.
The Italian Renaissance, on the flip side of the coin, began when people needed an escape from their worlds. These people wanted to escape from the world that was filled with plague, famine, death, sorrow and pain. It was because of the Black Plague that many men and women were forced into finding another way to alleviate their suffering. Normally, one would go to the Church to do so, but the showed their lack of real power as they stood helpless to face the plague. With the people’s one light of hope diminished, they all turned to the arts to find their escape. As the people escaped from their worlds, drawing others with them that had a keen interest or curiosity, the Italian Renaissance came to being.
As both Renaissance drove their regions into a time of rebirth and prosperity, one can see that even though they might have driven with the same motive, the destinations reached differed from one another.
The destination reached by the Northern Renaissance was one that benefited the society. The Northern Renaissance clearly saw society as one, rather than each individual in a society. All of the art and literature during this time period reflected upon society and its betterment. One such work of art that reflected society was the Peasant Wedding (Pieter Bruegel). In this painting, Bruegel shows peasant life in its most simplistic form. You can see each individual playing a role in this painting, but from an omniscient perspective, one can see all the individuals playing into the greater piece, which was their society. Furthermore, author Desiderius Erasmus wrote on their ideas of how society would work better. Erasmus wrote about the religious contradictions in society in his book The Praise of Folly, and the solution to end these contradictions as to make society better.
Although society did get an impact through the Italian Renaissance, it was the work of the individual and their ideas on individualism that made society prosper. The ideas of philosophy, values and traditions all rooted back to the ancient Greco-Roman culture. With this rooting back, many of the individual works of art involved perspective and secularism. Artist Leonardo da Vinci emphasizes a draw away from the religious perspective of art with his drawings of the human anatomy and his famous painting Mona Lisa. Continuing with this separation into secularist, individualistic territory, one finds author Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince as a brilliant guide for individuals to better themselves as a leader. Thus driving into the destination of the Italian Renaissance, which was the betterment of the individual overall.
