Datasets:

c123ian

/

khan_academy_context

like 0

Political Decolonization, c.1945-1997 By Trevor Getz Between about 1945 and 1997, most of the colonies around the world became independent. This is a chronological account of that transformation. Political decolonization “Decolonization” is the political process by which colonies become independent, self-ruling countries. The word “decolonization” is used in other ways, but in this article, we are going to focus on the political process. We want to understand how, in the relatively narrow time between 1945 and 1997, most of the world’s colonies became independent, especially in Asia and Africa, as shown in the map below: Large swaths of the world had been colonized by European states and Japan, before 1945. By Roke commonswiki. CC BY SA-3.0. This article will give you a focused narrative of some key trends and turning points in the decolonization process. But fear not! Several other articles will help you understand the causes of these changes in individual colonies, especially the rise of nationalism as a political force within a given colony. Still other articles will help you better understand how these transformations were tied to global events and trends, like the Second World War and the Cold War. But here we will survey the changes through a chronological narrative. In the wake of the Second World War This story begins just prior to the end of the Second World War. In 1945 only a few colonies had successfully taken steps towards independence. Egypt had largely regained its ability to govern itself from the British Empire in 1922, for example, and Iraq had done the same a decade later. But these were exceptions. Indeed, going into the Second World War, the power of empires looked stronger than ever. However, the chaos and conflict of the war changed this situation dramatically. First, some of the great empires were greatly weakened. Their connections to their colonies broke down, at least for a while. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, for example, were conquered by Germany. This allowed a few colonies, like Lebanon (1943), to declare themselves independent during the war. Others, such as Syria (1946) became self-ruling immediately after the war. The former colonies of defeated powers like Japan and Italy also used the opportunity to become independent. Italian Libya (1946) and two Japanese-ruled colonies, Korea (1945) and Taiwan (1945), are some examples. Meanwhile, the United States finally granted the long-promised independence to the Philippines (1946), partly in recognition of the major contributions Filipino soldiers had made to the war effort. Even though Britain was on the winning side of the war, the length and disruption of the fighting diminished its power as well. The major effort that India had put into the conflict and Britain’s failure to reward Indian soldiers and civilians certainly didn’t help Britain when it was over. But it did help the development of Indian nationalism. Under Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, a movement that imagined a secular or multi-religious free India gained momentum. This movement put enormous pressure on the British government through boycotts and non-violent protest campaigns, leading successfully to independence in 1948 – three years after the end of the war. However, not all inhabitants of the region embraced this vision. Many Muslims, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, were wary of living in a Hindu-majority state. As a result, India became independent, but split into several countries, including Muslim-dominated Pakistan. Mohandas K. Gandhi (right) and Mohammed Ali Jinnah (left) together in 1944. They would later clash over a vision for an independent India, and Jinnah would lead the movement for a separate Pakistan. Public domain. That same year, Britain also lost its hold on the area known as Palestine. Here, Britain faced not one, but two movements for independence – one Arab and one Jewish. Both groups wanted independent states, but their populations were intermingled. A global debate emerged over whether there should be one independent state, or two. In 1947, Britain’s government recognized that they could not afford to fight these movements and agreed to hand the question over to the United Nations. In May 1948, Jewish leaders proclaimed the foundation of the state of Israel. A war immediately commenced. The armies of nearby Arab states—including newly-independent Syria and Lebanon—supported the Arab movement. As a result, here, as in India, independence resulted in two states rather than one. Struggles against the French Empire But Britain’s problems might seem minor compared to France, a nation struggling to hold on to its empire in the face of military and financial shortages and extremely strong nationalist movements. Two particular examples stand out. The first was the fight for independence in Indochina, and in particular the colony of Vietnam. Conquered from the French by Japan during the war, Vietnam’s resistance fighters had declared independence in 1945 as the war ended. Known as the Vietminh, they were led by Ho Chi Minh. He hoped that the United States would support their independence. Instead, France was allowed to recolonize the country. Its natural resources – rubber, tin, zinc, rice, and coffee – were vital to rebuilding the French economy. This only drove the Vietminh into a guerilla war. Their forces, with some material support from the Soviet Union and China, grew stronger in the 1950s. In 1954, they defeated a French force at Dien Bien Phu. This victory showed that their resistance was too strong to beat. France agreed to leave Vietnam and that year all of Indochina divided into four states: Laos, Cambodia, communist North Vietnam, and US-backed, non-communist South Vietnam. The Vietnamese victory at Dien Bien Phu inspired anti-colonial figures elsewhere in the French Empire. This was especially true in Algeria, where the very same year a resistance movement began to fight a guerilla war against French forces. Algeria, in northern Africa, is much closer to France, and had many more European settlers than Vietnam did. This was one major reason the war was long and vicious. The Algerian resistance movement – the National Liberation Front (FLN, from the French Front de libération nationale) – suffered significant losses and largely lost the military campaign. However, they made it too expensive and difficult for the French to maintain their rule of the territory. In 1962, France agreed to Algerian independence. One of the leaders of the FLN, Ahmad Ben Bella, became the first President of an independent Algeria. The “Winds of Change” in Africa South of the Sahara Desert, new nationalist movements challenging colonial rule gathered speed. The earliest success was the Convention People’s Party, led by Kwame Nkrumah, in the British Gold Coast Colony. Nkrumah was a highly skilled political organizer. He studied in the United States, then returned to the Gold Coast to serve a group of men and women who were calling for a gradual end to British rule. Nkrumah, however, wanted a rapid transformation. Throughout the 1950s, he organized a mass movement that earned support across religious and ethnic groups, both in cities and in rural areas. The British arrested and imprisoned him, but this actually increased his popularity. Eventually, in the face of huge protests and pressure, the British gave up. In 1957, the colony became the independent state of Ghana, and Nkrumah became its first prime minister. Slowly, much of West Africa became independent. In 1957, the French government asked all of its colonies to vote on their relationship to France. They offered to negotiate a better relationship with any colonies willing to stay in the French Empire. The colony of Guinea voted “no” and became independent almost immediately in 1958. The rest of French West Africa and much of the French Empire in Africa became independent two years later, in 1960. Known as the “year of Africa,” 1960 also saw independence movements succeed in two giant colonies: the Belgian Congo and British-ruled Nigeria. But over in eastern and southern Africa, change was slower. One thing hindering the decolonization process was the presence of many European settlers in some of these colonies. In Kenya, the anti-colonial movement was forced underground by police and settler militias. The result was a long fight that included the violent Land and Freedom uprising (also known as Mau Mau) from 1952 to 1956. This uprising was put down, but the independence movement could not be stopped. A political party known as the Kenya Africa Union, which had not been closely involved in the uprising, largely led the struggle at this point. Its leader, Jomo Kenyatta, was imprisoned until 1961. After his release, he managed to negotiate a transfer of power, which finally took place in 1963. He became Kenya’s first prime minister. Jomo Kenyatta, first Prime Minister of independent Kenya. From the Dutch National Archives, CC BY SA-3.0 NL. Holdouts and outposts In southern Africa, however, colonialism held out through the 1960s and into the 1970s. The Portuguese colonies in this region – Angola and Mozambique – descended into guerilla skirmishes and then outright war as the Portuguese rulers tried to hold on. Despite sending in tens of thousands of troops and despite support from the United States, France, and other countries, Portugal finally lost these wars in 1975. To the south, however, British settlers still held on to power in Rhodesia. But Britain did not support them. In 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had recognized that colonialism was coming to an end. He made a famous speech in which he told Rhodesians and others to recognize that “winds of change” were coming to Africa. The Rhodesians, however, did not accept this, and they fought to contain a growing guerilla war. In 1979, they were finally forced to accept a negotiated settlement, which led to Rhodesia becoming the new country of Zimbabwe. Colonies elsewhere in the world were also gradually gaining their independence. This included Pacific islands like Fiji and Tonga (1971) and Vanuatu (1980) as well small Caribbean territories like Dominica (1978), Antigua (1981), and Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983). Anti-colonial movements on the Arabian Peninsula also hastened the British retreat there, creating the independent state of South Yemen in 1967. Four years later, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar became independent as well. Typically, the end of the twentieth century rush of “decolonization” is pegged to the British handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. Arguably, however, there are still colonies in the world today. In fact, some Hong Kong protests against PRC rule claim that the small but populous region is being treated as a colony today! But the major political transformation of the world into independent nation-states is over, at least for now. There may be other kinds of “decolonization” still to come. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How, according to the author, was nationalism an important thread connecting the two world wars?How were empires and colonialism continuities connecting the two world wars?How did the treatment of Germany following the First World War help lead to the Second World War? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Do you agree with the author’s assertion that we should treat the period 1914-1945 as a “continuous war”? Why or why not?What is the usefulness of breaking out of the normal view of World War I and World War II as two separate wars? How does viewing them as one war help us to understand this period better? How does it limit us? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Thirty Years of Continuous War Photo shows a caravan of people walking together, hauling belongings on wagons, next to a destroyed building and piles of rubble. By Whitney Howarth What's worse than having another world war only 20 years after the first one? How about 30 years of continuous war? Continuity and causation show how the global damage was not limited to battlefields. One long war? "The Great War" was fought from 1914 to 1919. But when another major conflict happened from 1939 to 1945, the two events became known as the First World War and the Second World War. As with book titles, this sounds less like separate wars and more like two parts of the same story. Indeed, many historians argue it was all one long continuous war. Are they right? One way to find out if two events are continuous is to look for continuities—the themes and situations that connect them. Aggressive nationalism and competitive colonial ambitions for empire drove Europeans and Asians to war in the beginning of the twentieth century. When the fighting ended in 1919, those ambitions did not, and nationalism had gotten even worse. The result was widespread violence until the second war ended in 1945. Let's explore the continuities of nationalism, empire, and colonialism of this deadly period in history, along with the causation that links them. Continuity: Nationalism We'll start with nationalism, one of the most important continuities of the First and Second World Wars due to its growth and prevalence in both conflicts. In June of 1914, a young Bosnian Serb opposing the Austro-Hungarian Empire assassinated a key political figure in Sarajevo. This initiated a series of events that led political leaders in Vienna and Berlin to strengthen diplomatic alliances in preparation for war. The assassination may have been a surprise, but everyone's desire to fight was not. Several decades of conflict had already created a hostile atmosphere between European leaders. On top of this, Europeans had big plans beyond Europe where they sought resources and markets to build wealth through imperialism. The major European states responded quickly to the assassination, believing the war would be short and inexpensive. It was neither, and it snowballed into possibly the bloodiest conflict up to that point in world history. Worse still, at the "end" of the war in 1919, the same territorial disputes, diplomatic misunderstandings, and national tensions still remained. The biggest difference was that now 17 million people were dead, another 20 million wounded, and the continent was more unstable. Then came part two, from 1939 to 1945, when the devastation killed millions more, and on an even more global scale. Between the two wars, an important new actor entered the story: Adolf Hitler. About a decade after the 1919 peace treaty, most Germans were hungry, humiliated, and furious at the harsh terms of treaty. It was no secret that the new rules had been designed to punish Germany. The high cost of reparations1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript and the cruel efforts to crush the Germans' military, industry, and spirit, were timed perfectly for a charismatic force like Hitler and his Nazi party. The Nazis drew on deep wells of antisemitism and nationalism in Germany (and Europe more broadly), but the nationalism that had been fostered by German politicians in 1914 was nothing compared to this new and zealous desire to prove Germany's superiority on the world stage. Many Germans felt an identity beyond the boundaries on the map. European nationalists spoke of ethnic unification and manipulated patriotic sentiments among German speakers in other regions who felt oppressed by larger powers. In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler demanded a German lebensraum, meaning "living space" and German national pride. Twenty years or more before, France, Germany, Russia, and other powers had also had national pride and land as war goals. Some might argue that the Nazi nationalism of the 1930s was more brutal, racist, antisemitic and destructive than the national goals of the states that fought in the First World War. But weren't both also ideas tied to a vision of the world where the nation was supreme above all other forms of statehood or identity? A grand castle is mostly destroyed, with many areas burned and turned to rubble.Devastation in France at the end of the First World War, 1919. Public domain. A grand castle is mostly destroyed, with many areas burned and turned to rubble. Devastation in France at the end of the First World War, 1919. Public domain. Continuity: Empire and colonialism A second continuity between the two wars was the importance of empire. This was true for many who served in battle. In both 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, European Empires recruited millions of soldiers, globally, to fight for their states on battlegrounds across four continents. Tens of millions of non-Europeans fought for their European colonizers and sacrificed their lives in this long war. Millions of survivors were impacted by the political and economic upheaval caused by the slaughter. Soldiers weren't the only people affected. Civilians around the world also participated in the long war, motivated by empire, alliances, and nationalism. As industrial, military, and colonial rivalries spread across the globe, so did a dangerous hunger for empire. Nations made choices that cast them in central roles of the most catastrophic drama of human aggression in history. One example—of many—is Japan. The Japanese state had a very small empire when it joined forces with the Entente Powers against Germany and Austria-Hungary during the First World War. As a result, Japan expanded its sphere of influence over China. It also captured the German colonies in Asia and took control of many Pacific sea lanes (trade routes). Its empire was expanding, but the Japanese economy still hungered for more. 4 troops sit, kneeling, in an open field, holding rifles and a Japanese flag. Japanese troops invade Manchuria, China, in 1931, to gain access to land and raw materials. Public domain. 4 troops sit, kneeling, in an open field, holding rifles and a Japanese flag. Japanese troops invade Manchuria, China, in 1931, to gain access to land and raw materials. Public domain. In the 1930s, nationalist politics in Japan were turning increasingly toward militarism, totalitarianism, and expansion. A shortage of raw materials in Japan pushed industrialists to demand expansion into new markets, where they could also acquire needed materials. To broaden its economic sphere of influence, Japan invaded and occupied China. The Chinese were treated as conquered colonial subjects. The massacres that followed resulted in the slaughter of 400,000 Chinese people and the rape of tens of thousands of women. Japanese aggression mirrored the nationalist aggression of Germans in the European theater. These two states, on either side of the planet, would soon realize they had a greater chance of securing their goals if they joined forces. But first a little more background on those European forces. One could argue that the German and Italian states during this period were trying to expand their empires. Benito Mussolini, the Fascist dictator of Italy, declared to his people that he was going to rebuild the Roman Empire for a new Italy. Under his leadership, Italy invaded Albania, Libya, Ethiopia, and, finally, Greece in this attempt to build an empire. Germany under Nazi rule also looked a lot like a nation trying to build an empire, mainly in Eastern Europe. In both cases, most conquered people were treated like colonial subjects. Only the few who were accepted as "ethnically" German or Italian were incorporated as citizens. Japanese aggression in China was so similar that in 1940 they joined forces with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy by signing a pact. In December of 1941, Japan bombed the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The idea was to keep the American military as far as possible from Southeast Asia, where Japan saw its future empire. The United States' response to Japanese aggression was its entry into the Second World War, already three years under way in Europe. Four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy declared war on the United States, merging the European and Pacific conflicts into one. Causation: German moves It is also possible to argue that the way the First World War ended and the events of the years immediately following (1919-1928) led to the rise of fascism and the Nazi Party in Germany. Scholars who make this argument focus particularly on the treatment of the German people at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Within the first weeks of the First World War, Germany's enemies had seized many of its colonies in Africa and the Pacific. After its defeat in 1919, Germany lost the rest of its colonial possessions, territory they considered to be actually part of Germany itself. Now combine those losses with the humiliations of the Treaty of Versailles, the result of the 1919 conference. Heavy reparations, dismantled industries, and severe disarmament in the wake of such defeat meant Germany could never reach world-power status. This was done on purpose. Some of the victors of the First World War, especially the French government, wanted to punish Germany for its role in starting the war and permanently weaken the nation so it could never be aggressive again. This plan backfired. A cartoon depicts a man, wearing a collar that reads “Germany”, being crushed under a sac that reads “Reparations 55,000,000,000 dollars”An American political cartoon suggesting that reparations would be impossible for Germany to pay back. By New York World, public domain. A cartoon depicts a man, wearing a collar that reads “Germany”, being crushed under a sac that reads “Reparations 55,000,000,000 dollars” An American political cartoon suggesting that reparations would be impossible for Germany to pay back. By New York World, public domain. This solution, while reasonable to some, ultimately had dangerous consequences for humanity. Holding the German people collectively guilty for their leaders' choices in the First World War left their citizens dejected and humiliated. It paved the way for an authoritarian state. To end their feelings of helplessness, many were in favor of state regulation of all aspects of society, and even the militarization of civilian life. But seeking such order under the direction of a strong fascist state did more than rebuild national strength. It created a monstrous degree of nationalism fueled by exclusion and intolerance. Hitler and his Nazi party were able to come to power partly because they harnessed the desperation and vulnerability of German citizens who had been wounded as a nation after 1919. People were also eager to find someone to blame for those wounds and losses. Charismatic leaders could gain power by channeling the existing, widespread prejudice and hatred against Jews, communists, and other groups. Such fearmongering spoke to the hearts of a once proud and powerful nation. They longed for lost days of glory, and imagined a future even more spectacular than before. Yet, neither Germany nor Japan achieved their nationalist dream, as they were defeated together in war. As a result, the combined cost of German and Japanese aggression in the second phase of this 30-year conflict (1939-1945) resulted in unprecedented loss of life globally. Conclusion The continuities between the First World War and the Second World War suggest that the unsatisfying conclusion of the first conflict may have contributed to the second. Remember that the Second World War was even deadlier than the first. There were more deaths in combat, in state sponsored extermination campaigns, in soaring death rates of civilians due to disease and famine. We can ask ourselves if the end of the First World War was a missed opportunity to create a longer-lasting peace. We can wonder whether the year 1919 was when we were supposed to learn to deal more effectively with militarism, nationalism, and empire-building. But when we assess historical questions like this, we must be careful. Larger questions loom, such as: Were these continuities a result of the mistakes made by the people who negotiated the end of the First World War? Or were they a result of deeper issues that were not so easily resolved? Fun fact: Fascist is capitalized when referring to the actual National Fascist Party that Mussolini led. Hitler was also a fascist, but there the word is lowercase because it refers to his style of leadership, not the name of his political party. In a fascist state, as Hitler's Germany would become, strict economic and civic laws can be enacted without a democratic process. [Notes] Author bio Whitney Howarth, is an Associate Professor of History at Plymouth State University where she specializes in modern world history and the history of India. Dr. Howarth has taught world history at the college level since 1999 and was, for nearly a decade, a research fellow at Northeastern’s World History Center, where she assisted in the research, design and creation of professional development programs for high school world history teachers, hosted seminars by top world historical scholars, and produced multi-media publications (1995-2004). [Sources and attributions]

Fascism in Germany [[header image]] By David Eacker The Nazis were not the only fascists in Europe. But Nazism’s racist ideology and persecution of Jews distinguished it from other varieties of fascism. Introduction Nazi Germany is often held up as the model of a fascist government, and for good reason. Robert O. Paxton has said that “[o]nly in Nazi Germany did a fascist regime approach the outer horizons of radicalization.” Beginning in 1933, the Nazis tried to build a powerful state with the intent of controlling most aspects of life. They were defeated in 1945, but not before using this state to drag Germany and the world into a catastrophic war. It cost tens of millions of lives, including more than six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust. In this article, we look at how Nazism rose to power in Germany, the way it used the state to advance its agenda, and how persecution of the Jews was a defining feature of the Nazi regime. Nazis take power Between the founding of the Nazi Party (NSDAP)1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript in February 1920 to the rise of its leader, Adolf Hitler, who gained the office of chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis never held an elected majority in Germany and therefore had limited political power. But those limits began to change after a fire nearly destroyed the Reichstag building in Berlin on February 28, 1933. As news of the incident spread, Hitler claimed that the fire was a terrorist act by communists trying to overthrow the government. Using a combination of political tactics, violence, and intimidation, Hitler and the Nazis gathered enough parliamentary support to pass the Enabling Act (March 24, 1933), which transferred broad lawmaking powers to Hitler. It’s significant that this was done by parliamentary vote. By confirming this law with a two-thirds majority, the German parliament ended Germany’s democracy. They gave Hitler the powers needed to create a dictatorship. Within weeks, Hitler had dissolved all other political parties to eliminate any opposition as he assumed the powers of an autocrat. [[image 1]] While the Enabling Act allowed the Nazis to take power, it also illustrated Hitler’s desire to look like he was playing by the rules. In fact, the Nazi state was in many ways a regime of laws administered through institutions already in place. Hitler and the Nazi Party used the legal system to enact sweeping changes and take control of more and more aspects of German life. This is a key trait of totalitarianism. The Nazis wanted to bring about social, political, and economic transformations, but with as little disruption as possible. On the surface, it seemed to at least some people that institutional continuity was steady. Thus, Hitler and the Nazis were able to make big shifts in policy as if this were all business as usual. Antisemitism and the Nazi state Because the Nazis used familiar institutions to take over the government, it may have felt like nothing extraordinary was taking place. In truth, a revolution was under way. The regime’s laws allowed for policies that dramatically altered the relationship of German people to the state and how they related to each other. The Nazi Party made use of, and encouraged, existing antisemitism in Germany. Legal attacks on Jews started right away in 1933, but perhaps the most significant act of Nazi legislation was the passage of the Nuremberg Laws on September 15, 1935.2^22squared These statutes allowed the persecution of German Jews on two important fronts. One, Jews were stripped of their citizenship because they did not have “German blood,” and, two, intermarriage between Jews and ethnic Germans was prohibited. With the loss of citizenship came the loss of basic rights. Oppressive antisemitism had been common in Germany before 1935, but the Nuremberg Laws gave it the state’s official stamp of approval. After 1935, wave after wave of laws made things even worse for Germany’s Jewish population. They were denied employment in certain trades and industries, and many Jewish businesses were boycotted or forced to close. Access to public education was restricted. Civil service careers were forbidden to anyone considered non-Aryan by birth. The state often seized the property of Jewish families. These measures took a huge toll on German Jews. In just a few short years a once thriving community, some of whose families had lived in Germany for centuries, was reduced to a population living at the complete mercy of the Nazis and their fellow Germans. The purpose of the Nuremberg Laws was to terrorize Jews and remove them, first from legally participating in German society, and then from being physically there at all. German fascists believed that Jews posed a threat to the well-being of the nation. But in addition to wanting Jews out of Germany, there was another goal behind Nazi racist ideology. German fascists portrayed Jews and communists—and Jewish communists above all—as the greatest danger to the German nation and its people. The Nazi leadership exploited the fear this generated to convince everyday people to support their terrible policies. They told German citizens that the displacement of the Jews from Germany, and eventually all of Europe, would bring racial and national renewal to Germany and, eventually, all Europe. Thus they used their racist ideology to create a powerful, centralized state that gave them total power. Defining the nation The Nuremberg Laws and other laws didn’t stop there. Excluding and demeaning Jews contrasted what it was to be German with what it was to be Jewish. It meant that part of being German was not being Jewish, and vice versa. German citizens had rights, access to national resources, and economic privileges; Jews did not. Germans formed one racial group, the Jews another, and the two were not meant to coexist. By “othering” Jews in these ways, anti-Jewish laws made German ethnic and political identity more uniform. Religious identity was used the same way. Some Protestants and Catholics used the Nazis’ antisemitic policies and language to reaffirm Christianity’s place as the foundation of German and European culture. Jews, instead of just not being Christian, came to be seen as enemies of Christianity. According to this logic, the Nazis were making sure Europe remained Christian by eliminating the Jews. Anti-Jewish laws also revealed just how far into everyday life the tentacles of the Nazi state could reach. After watching the Nazis systematically ban Jews from German society and seize their property, other Germans could be certain of one thing: Hitler’s regime had enormous power over the lives of ordinary people. And it was not only the persecution of Jews that made this clear. Nazi policy shaped everything from the military and the economy to the health-care system and elementary education. Even the film and radio industries became tools of Nazi propaganda under the guidance of Joseph Goebbels.3^33cubed This kind of pervasive control, or hegemony, was meant to bring people into compliance with the regime in every aspect of their lives. The efforts of Nazi leaders to insert the power of state into the most remote corners of society is a typical feature of totalitarianism. Conclusion It is important to remember that the Nazis took over in Germany because of a vote. Anxious about security concerns raised by the Reichstag fire, parliament granted Hitler the sole authority to make laws. Using his new powers, Hitler obtained one-party rule. He and his party destroyed the liberal notions of equality before the law and individual rights. They built a totalitarian state to reshape German society in accordance with Nazi ideology. These are the basic elements of Nazi authoritarianism. From 1933 onward this state terrorized Jews and other minorities in an effort to remove them entirely from German society and, ultimately, from all of Europe. Antisemitism was central to German fascism, and German fascism was central to Nazism. Still, the Nazis’ enforcement of measures like the Nuremberg Laws wasn’t just because they hated Jews. It also reinforced a sense of German ethnic identity and showed how far-reaching the arm of state really was. [Notes] Author bio David Eacker is a Ph.D. student in History at Indiana University–Bloomington. His research focuses on modern Europe with an emphasis on Germany and Britain from 1789 to 1918. He is currently working on a dissertation about missionaries, theology, and empire in the 18th and 19th centuries. David has worked for two academic journals, Theory and Society and The American Historical Review. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How does the author define a “total war economy”?What was Japan’s economic motivation for conquering and colonizing in Asia?Why did the Soviet Union have an advantage in directing resources toward a total war economy?How did the outbreak of war affect the American economy?Japan and Britain are both small island nations. Why did the British not have to invade and conquer in order to supply its war effort? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Using the production and distribution frame narrative, explain how the patterns of industrialization helped the Allies win the war.What developments during the long nineteenth century gave the Allied powers an advantage in this twentieth-century conflict? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Economics in the Second World War Propaganda artwork represents the British Commonwealth of Nations. There are soldiers from India, East Africa, South Africa, New Zealand, a Canadian airman, an Australian soldier and a Royal Navy sailor. The men stand proudly together, holding rifles over their shoulders. There is a union jack flag in the background. By Whitney Howarth Money is a factor in most wars, but WWII took it to another level. Here is a look at how so many of the nations in this devastating conflict came to embrace the idea of a “total war” economy. Mobilizing for war Can we all agree that war is bad? Apparently, we cannot, since along with the violence of war there is also profit. As is the case with most major conflicts, the causes of the Second World War were complicated. But it's clear that many of the people in power, across many of the nations involved, believed that entering the war would benefit their nation's economy. It wasn't just about sending soldiers to fight. When citizens, businesses, and the rest of a nation's infrastructure revolve around the war effort, a total war economy emerges. A look at the context will help illustrate how various nations, often very distant from each other, had similar economic motives as they mobilized (prepared) for war. For starters, the Great Depression had just caused a global crisis. Germany, still reeling from their defeat in WWI had been hit especially hard. When Adolph Hitler promised to end the economic suffering and humiliation of the German people, his political party rose to power. To create jobs—which the economy desperately needed—Hitler's government increased military spending, and German businesses were given profitable government contracts. One part of Hitler's plan was to use this new military might to invade neighboring countries for resources and industrial goods to further his vision of a Greater Germany. Of course, because his vision also demanded the racial and ethnic "purity" of this expanded realm, this plan also called for the removal or genocide of many of the populations of the conquered regions. Some of the people of these countries, along with minorities within Germany, were also forced to become unpaid laborers—essentially slaves—to the German war machine. A black and white photograph of many people, marching down the street holding brooms in their hands. Behind them are several large buildings. Forced laborers in German-occupied Lithuania. Bild Bundesarchiv, CC BY-SA 3.0. A black and white photograph of many people, marching down the street holding brooms in their hands. Behind them are several large buildings. Forced laborers in German-occupied Lithuania. Bild Bundesarchiv, CC BY-SA 3.0. On the other side of the world, Japan was having similar issues. The Depression had caused widespread poverty during this time. Japan had few natural resources, and the government was in debt. Wanting to be less dependent on foreign markets for oil and rubber, the Japanese established colonies in Korea and Manchuria to get access to these valuable resources—to use and to sell. The United States did not approve of this aggression, so they embargoed (blocked) Japan's oil exports in 1940 to slow their economic plan. Japan sped up plans to attack Indonesia and the Philippines for even more resources, and again the U.S. imposed severe restrictions. Japan raised the stakes with their attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, putting them at war with the U.S. Japan's prime minister at the time, General Tojo, also commanded the military. As with Germany, he believed Japan needed a total war economy, and took dramatic steps to achieve it. Allied powers With Axis powers clearly mobilizing for war, the Allies prepared for another global conflict. Soviet Russia (U.S.S.R.), fearing German aggression, used the peacetime economy to build up their military—just as Germany had done. From 1938 to 1941, Russian leader Joseph Stalin doubled the size of his army to five million troops. To pay for it, all Russian households had to consume less food, fuel and other resources. This would not have gone as smoothly in most nations, but Soviet Russia had a "command economy" that gave the state control of all industries, including farms and the food they produced. This level of government control gave the U.S.S.R. an advantage when it came to mobilizing its resources and industrial labor for war. Most nations struggled to adapt to the total war economy, but Russia's command economy was already so close to that concept it was easier to require citizens and businesses to join the war effort. Photograph of three children, sitting at a small desk, smiling and holding their lunch as if about to take a bite. They sit outside, next to a pile of rubble.Children in a bombed-out British school eating food from the US sent as part of the lend-lease program. By Ministry of Information Photo Division Photographer, public domain Photograph of three children, sitting at a small desk, smiling and holding their lunch as if about to take a bite. They sit outside, next to a pile of rubble. Children in a bombed-out British school eating food from the US sent as part of the lend-lease program. By Ministry of Information Photo Division Photographer, public domain The economy in the United States was another story. A clear shift in economic priorities had begun even before the U.S. actively entered the war in December of 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. air base Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt had signed legislation nine months earlier to create the Lend-Lease program. This allowed the U.S. to supply warships, planes, and munitions (and food for civilians) to help the Allied nations that were fighting Germany, Italy, and Japan. It meant that long before officially joining the fight, the U.S. was already participating. The Lend- Lease program aimed to make the United States into what Roosevelt called "the great arsenal of democracy." Total war economy When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war on both Japan and Germany. As with so many other nations, it was not just about sending soldiers and weapons. The U.S. wanted all of its citizens to make an effort and move toward a—you guessed it—total war economy. The government gave incentives to private companies to transform their manufacturing plants into centers of production for weapons, munitions, airplanes, and ships. All citizens were asked to ration their use of certain resources and support the war effort by collecting scraps of rubber, paper, and metals. Every person, at every level of society, was asked to pitch in and sacrifice for the cause. An advertisement for Canada shows an image of a glowing, orange wheat field. Behind the field stands a large factory. Text reads: “DO YOU KNOW THAT CANADA besides growing millions of acres of wheat has great mineral wealth: that 90% of the world's nickel is mined in Canada: that Canadian mass production of aeroplanes and munitions is in full swing. THESE ARE THE SINEWS OF WAR.”A poster advertising Canada’s contribution to the British war effort. Public domain. An advertisement for Canada shows an image of a glowing, orange wheat field. Behind the field stands a large factory. Text reads: “DO YOU KNOW THAT CANADA besides growing millions of acres of wheat has great mineral wealth: that 90% of the world's nickel is mined in Canada: that Canadian mass production of aeroplanes and munitions is in full swing. THESE ARE THE SINEWS OF WAR.” A poster advertising Canada’s contribution to the British war effort. Public domain. In the process, the U.S. economy, which like most other countries was reeling from the Depression, was suddenly doing great. Production sped up, new factories were built, closed factories reopened, and millions of jobs were created in both private and public sectors. Tanks began to roll out of car factories. Assembly lines that used to make vacuums and kitchen appliances started turning out bombs. In order to stabilize the economy, the government controlled both wages and prices. As millions of men went off to war in Europe and the Pacific, housewives, students, and retired people took up the jobs they left behind. Two thirds of the American economy had been integrated into the war effort by the end of 1943 and unemployment dropped to record lows. Even scientists, such as physicists and chemists, expanded their research to develop new weapons and technologies that might give the U.S. military a greater advantage. One result of this was the Manhattan Project, which produced the first nuclear weapons. Over in the United Kingdom and Canada, similar economic changes were made to meet the needs of war. The food shortage was even worse for the British than the people in the U.S., making rationing essential. Britain also relied on Canada for dairy and meat products. So even though Canada started producing much more food during the war, Canadians still had to ration their own consumption. This was so they could keep feeding British citizens, who desperately needed more resources. Within the U.K. a desperate need for agricultural labor brought tens of thousands of British women from the cities to rural areas to serve as "land girls." Rural areas were safer places to be anyway, since the Germans were targeting cities with large civilian populations. That's why hundreds of thousands of children were also evacuated to rural areas of the island for safety. In total, more than 450,000 British civilians lost their lives. The empire advantage Island though it was, the United Kingdom controlled the world's largest empire, and that meant its total war economy had a global reach. The U.K. used its influence to aid in the fight. During the war, the U.K. imported oil for military usage from Persia, Iraq, and North America. Over 15 million subjects joined the British forces in the Allied fight against the Axis Powers. In addition to boots on the ground, members of the empire had skilled people, provisions, industrial materials, and natural resources that Britain needed. This network of support stretched from Australia to the Caribbean, from East Africa to India. Britain's ability to mobilize this enormous military industrial capacity is a major part of how they survived the war. In India alone, over 2.5 million subjects were recruited to fight in the war in a variety of African, Asian, and European countries. Over 150,000 non-British subjects gave their lives for the British Empire, even as political leaders in Africa and in India were organizing movements to liberate themselves from British rule. Wartime disruptions had caused severe food shortages, leading to a famine that killed hundreds of thousands there. On various global battlefields, the Indian subcontinent sacrificed 87,000 soldiers. The economic and human costs of war were unbearably high for millions more colonial people who were wounded, widowed, and orphaned. Conclusion It's impossible to argue with the old saying: "War is hell." In the paragraphs above, we've only glimpsed a portion of the death toll of the Second World War. We have not mentioned genocide of Jewish people, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the many other horrors of this massive war. Economics, on its own, does not sound like a violent topic. Yet we see countless examples in this war and others that the pursuit of economic prosperity can leave terrible devastation in its wake. Author bio Whitney Howarth, is an Associate Professor of History at Plymouth State University where she specializes in modern world history and the history of India. Dr. Howarth has taught world history at the college level since 1999 and was, for nearly a decade, a research fellow at Northeastern’s World History Center, where she assisted in the research, design and creation of professional development programs for high school world history teachers, hosted seminars by top world historical scholars, and produced multi-media publications (1995-2004). [Sources and attributions]

Apartheid [[header image]] By Jeff Spoden Legalized racism has occurred in many places and many eras. One of history’s most glaring and most recent examples was the system known as apartheid in South Africa. Keyword: was. What is apartheid? Back in the 1980s, one issue brought the world together as few had done before. Activists from every corner of the Earth, inspired by the actions of Black South Africans, demanded an end to an unjust system known as apartheid. Apartheid is an Afrikaans1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript word meaning “apartness.” It was a policy of legal discrimination and segregation directed at the Black majority in South Africa. The oppression of Black African communities, even within Africa, was nothing new. European colonial governments had placed restrictions on almost every aspect of their lives, from marriage to employment to housing. In South Africa in particular, the white minority had used their colonial authority and weaponry to control the majority population as early as the eighteenth century. Under British rule, they had passed a series of laws that gradually brought most of the land of South Africa under their control, and forced the indigenous people to become poorly paid laborers. But after WWII, independence was in the air. Britain, France, and other European colonial powers were weakened from the devastating war against Germany. At the same time, countries all over the world that had been colonized and exploited for decades now wanted their freedom. Between 1946 and 1970, over 60 countries declared their independence from foreign rule. Of those, 44 were in Africa! It was good timing. This passionate movement toward decolonization and self-determination was happening along with a global spirit of cooperation that emerged from the devastating effects of WWII. Many parts of the world were coming together in calls for freedom and justice. The South African Black majority, inspired by these calls and fed up with discriminatory laws, demanded equality. Of course, the powerful rarely give up anything without a fight, and the white minority in South Africa were no exception. In 1948 the National Party became the ruling political party in South Africa. Frightened by increasing Black activism and fueled by racism, they passed a series of laws to make the oppression of Black South Africans perfectly legal. This discriminatory legal system was called apartheid. Some of these laws included: Classifying all South Africans into racial categories: “white,” “black,” and “colored” (mixed race).Making it illegal for people to marry across those categories, or even to have sexual relations.Mandating segregation (separation of races) in schools and all public facilities.Moving all Black South Africans into small areas referred to as “homelands” or Bantustans. In total, 30 million Black South Africans—over 70 percent of the population—were moved onto 13 percent of South Africa’s land.Restricting freedom of movement, requiring Black South Africans to always carry a “pass book” showing their assigned race and “homeland.” Being outside of one’s “homeland” was cause for arrest.Forbidding Black South Africans from owning land outside of the Bantustans.Forbidding Black labor unions from striking.Making it illegal to protest, or to gather in groups large enough to start a protest.Denying Black people the right to vote, except for local authorities in their Bantustans. Classifying all South Africans into racial categories: “white,” “black,” and “colored” (mixed race). Making it illegal for people to marry across those categories, or even to have sexual relations. Mandating segregation (separation of races) in schools and all public facilities. Moving all Black South Africans into small areas referred to as “homelands” or Bantustans. In total, 30 million Black South Africans—over 70 percent of the population—were moved onto 13 percent of South Africa’s land. Restricting freedom of movement, requiring Black South Africans to always carry a “pass book” showing their assigned race and “homeland.” Being outside of one’s “homeland” was cause for arrest. Forbidding Black South Africans from owning land outside of the Bantustans. Forbidding Black labor unions from striking. Making it illegal to protest, or to gather in groups large enough to start a protest. Denying Black people the right to vote, except for local authorities in their Bantustans. Historians have noted how similar these laws were to the Jim Crow laws in the American South from the 1870s through the 1960s. The Jim Crow laws forced segregation, second-class status, and political disenfranchisement (taking away the right to vote) on African Americans. Apartheid did the same thing, but to a Black majority within South Africa. As the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum in the US, the federal government slowly began to dismantle these legal restrictions. But about the same time, South Africa’s national government was writing inequality and injustice deeper into the law of the land. [[image 1]] The anti-apartheid movement The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was fought on many fronts. Political parties were formed such as the African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP), the South African Indian Congress, and the South African Congress of Democrats. In the 1950s, most of these parties formed a multi-racial alliance against apartheid. For many years these groups used nonviolent activism. But as National Party laws became more racist and restrictive, the opposition groups called for stronger action. They organized strikes, boycotts of white businesses, and protests of all kinds. In 1955 they issued the Freedom Charter. This document called for an end to apartheid and new freedom and opportunity for Black South Africans. It stated that all people were entitled to an education and a decent job. Also, since many influential leaders had embraced the idea of African socialism, the Freedom Charter called for worker control of industry and a sharing of all the nation’s land and wealth. The Freedom Charter was controversial. Some Black activists disliked the references to all people having rights, wanting it to focus exclusively on the rights and freedoms of Black Africans. Others were uncomfortable with the charter’s socialist language. They feared that any link to socialist or communist ideas would discredit the entire anti-apartheid movement. And that’s pretty much what happened. The white minority government sounded the alarm that all activism—protests, strikes, and boycotts—was communist-inspired. Remember that this was taking place during the 1950s and 1960s, when many were panicked about the spread of communism. The US and USSR were in the midst of the Cold War. Governments, as well as some dictators, were using the excuse of “fighting communism” to crush rebellions of workers who rose up to battle poverty and injustice. It was easy for the National Party to do the same. They claimed that their brutal tactics against Black activists were simply attempts to stop a communist takeover. [[image 2]] And brutal they were. As opposition to apartheid gained momentum across the country, the government unleashed the power of their well-armed police and military. In 1960 police opened fire on peaceful protesters in the township2^22squared of Sharpeville, killing 69 people. Shortly after these killings in 1962, Nelson Mandela, a lawyer and president of the ANC, was imprisoned along with other leaders of the opposition movement. At his trial, Mandela inspired future generations of activists with his three-hour “I Am Prepared to Die” speech in court. While Mandela would spend 27 years in prison, both he and others continued the fight against apartheid. In 1976, in the township of Soweto, thousands of students took to the streets to protest new educational restrictions. The police responded with tear gas and gunfire, which resulted in the deaths of over 100 schoolchildren. These and other actions were creating the type of inspirational figures that authoritarian leaders fear. Stephen Biko was a leader of the South African Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), which shared ideas about Black pride and empowerment with people of color around the world. In the same way that the American Civil Rights Movement inspired anti-apartheid struggles, African American groups like the Black Panther Party were motivating the BCM from many thousands of miles away. The term “Black is Beautiful” may have originated in America, but it was Biko who used it to inspire a generation of young Black Africans. When he was jailed and beaten to death in Port Elizabeth, 20,000 people attended his funeral and he became a beloved martyr of the movement. [[image 3]] A global response Nelson Mandela was also beloved. His decades-long imprisonment became a symbol of the ongoing repression by the South African government. The resistance to apartheid by youth in Soweto and elsewhere was discussed all over the world. It broadened the anti-apartheid movement into a powerful international network. As more people became aware of the horrors of apartheid, the international community began to act. In the 1970s and 1980s, South African teams were banned from participating in the Olympics, FIFA World Cup, and the Rugby World Cup, among others. Activist groups, in particular university students in America and Europe, began asking their schools to “divest” from South Africa. Divestment is basically the opposite of investment, so this movement called for companies to stop doing business in South Africa and for individuals to boycott any companies that refused. This became a major focus of the movement within the United States, with students on campuses nationwide staging demonstrations. Their message: Americans must sever ties to anyone conducting business in South Africa. Inspired by the continued struggle of the Black community in South Africa, people around the world became determined to bring about change in South Africa. The frequent television reports of Black South Africans taking to the streets and being met with brutal government retaliation helped to keep attention on the situation. In many countries, schools, churches, city councils, union halls, and corporations were all demanding an end to apartheid. Some leaders, like President Ronald Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, resisted these calls. They claimed that the Black activists supported communism. But the international movement managed to overcome their objections. South Africans felt supported and encouraged, and their political power grew while the South African government became financially and politically more isolated. Finally, in 1990, the world watched as the new president of the National Party, F. W. de Klerk, released Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. The party began to overturn segregationist laws and recognized the ANC as a legitimate political party. Within four years, Mandela became president of the country. Though the new majority government faced many challenges, it was a new day in South Africa. Apartheid was over. The country continues to grapple with the problems faced by many nations: economic development, poverty, crime, access to education, and discrimination. But its ability to end the policies of apartheid are still an example of how people can come together to overcome years of mistreatment and work to create a just society. It has also shown how the fight for equality in one nation can move to a global stage and gain support. Had the activists in South Africa not been able to bring on board global support, would apartheid still be the law of the land in South Africa? [Notes] Author bio Jeff Spoden is a retired social studies teacher, having been in the classroom for 33 years. He taught US history, world history, sociology, international relations, and history of American popular music. He loves music, film, travel, the Golden State Warriors, and the number 32. [Sources and attributions]

Modern Latin America By Alejandro Quintana *Latin American countries inherited a hierarchical structure from their colonial past, creating power shifts among the elites on the right and popular governments on the left. * Introduction Latin America is the region of the Western Hemisphere south of the United States. Its countries’ languages are either Spanish, Portuguese, or French, and are distinct from Anglo-America. Latin America is vastly diverse. It includes more than 50% of the biodiversity of the planet, some of the world’s largest cities, and countless smaller towns with ancient traditions. Some countries have large indigenous communities, others have majorities of African origin, while others are of European origin. However, the region’s predominant “ethnicity” is a mixture of all of them, called mestizo. Music ranges from Argentinean tango to Mexican mariachi to Puerto Rican salsa. Each country has distinct and rich cuisines, literature, and arts. People of the Americas identify themselves by nationality, such as Guatemalan, Paraguayan, and Dominican. The terms “Latina” and “Latino” apply to people from Latin America living in the United States, but not elsewhere. "Hacendados En La Cañada” by Johann Moritz Rugendas. This nineteenth century painting depicts Latin American elites overseeing their property. Public domain. Latin American diversity shares common trends from its colonial past. One of the most prevalent is the hierarchical structure of society. The colonial plan for the Spanish, Portuguese, and French was to be at the top of Latin American society, enjoying power, wealth, and influence. Indigenous and African peoples were at the bottom, with the mestizos in between. Independence promised the end of inequality, but that promise was not fulfilled. The people who achieved independence became the new elites. They have no incentive in destroying the system that guaranteed their newfound power, wealth, and influence. Thus, the history of modern Latin America is the story of constant struggles between elite groups fighting to retain privileges, and the rest of society fighting to gain power, wealth, and influence. Obviously, each Latin American nation followed a different path, but the conflict between elites and popular groups is a common trend. Economic, demographic, and political events swing like the pendulum on an old clock. Over time, it swings to the right, in favor of elites; then to the left, in favor of popular groups; and then back again. Of course, there is evolution resulting from this swaying, and not all countries moved in the same direction at the same time. Also, we have to keep in mind that neither elites nor popular groups are solid, and have conflicts of interest within each. Occasionally, some elites find allies with some popular groups and vice-versa, and new elites have emerged from popular groups. In this article, we study the swing of this pendulum to explain the history of modern Latin America since World War II. We use Brazil, Venezuela, and Chile as examples to illustrate the seventy years of history of more than twenty different countries. Before World War II, the pendulum swings left In the early twentieth century, the pendulum was secured on the right by dictators, as in Venezuela, or military-supported elites, as in Brazil and Chile. Their wealth and power depended on minerals and food exported to the industrialized world, such as coffee and sugar from Brazil, copper and saltpeter (for fertilizers and gunpowder) from Chile, and cocoa and crude oil from Venezuela. Workers and peasants who produced this wealth were generally overworked and underpaid. The middle class grew as modernization required more lawyers, doctors, merchants, journalists, and university students, among others. These classes united in their resentment against elites. They tried to replace the export economy with a progressive economy, advocating for land reform, workers’ rights, and national industries. Progressive presidents emphasized social justice and democracy, defeating elites with popular support, and women attained the right to vote. All this helped push the pendulum to the left. Getulio Vargas, First President to Challenge Elite Rule in Brazil (1930-1945). Public domain. After the war, the pendulum swings right The end of World War II radicalized politics. On the left, radicals sought a classless society through violent revolutions. On the right, the United States supported elites and the military in order to secure Latin American exports and fight communism. The United States opened The School of the Americas to train Latin American military officers in anti-communist ideology and anti-guerrilla tactics. Progressive presidents were accused of communist sympathies and toppled by their armies, further radicalizing the left. Even some Catholic priests became radicalized by liberation theology, an ideology that mixed Marxism with the Catholic gospel, condemning the political and economic exploitation of the lower classes by elites. The military reacted more aggressively against this radicalization, swinging the pendulum further right. Brazil’s progressive period ended with a military coup in 1964. The military ruled the next twenty years. Political parties were eliminated and war was declared on all leftist sympathizers, not just the radicals. The economy grew, but so did poverty. Social programs assisting with food, education, and housing declined even as the population swelled. In 1970, Chile elected the first Marxist president in Latin America. The United States questioned the election and boycotted the Chilean economy to force his fall, but it didn’t work. So, in 1973, the US government supported a bloody coup led by the head of Chile’s military, General Augusto Pinochet. His dictatorship initiated a prolonged “Dirty War” against the left. Anyone from leftist leaders to passive sympathizers or their family members could be kidnapped in the night by security forces. Tens of thousands were never seen again, tortured and then “disappeared” by the regime. This so-called war had an international reach under Operation Condor, an intelligence sharing and military support network in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. In contrast to Brazil and Chile, Venezuela managed to avoid a prolonged dictatorship and kept the pendulum on the left. Moderate reformists and leftist politicians successfully created a power-sharing coalition against the elite, called Fixed Point (Punto Fijo). Military Dictatorships Replacing Democracies. Pinochet, Dictator of Chile, 1973-1989. By Ben2, CC BY-SA 3.0. Neoliberalism and the pink tide In addition to military repression and leftist guerrillas, the 1970s experienced a violent economic swing. Initially, exporters enjoyed a boom. Borrowing from easily available money, governments expanded social programs and reinforced infrastructures overwhelmed by the acceleration of population growth. However, in 1978 the price of exports collapsed and lenders began to demand payback with rising interest rates. Countries were unable to pay their debts and their economies collapsed, opening an opportunity for neoliberalism, an economic model that favors the export economy. This type of economy benefits the elites while reducing government spending on the social programs that assist the poor. Neoliberalism revived the economies of Latin America, empowering the elites—but standards of living fell. Neoliberalism kept the pendulum on the right, even as popular resistance strove to push it leftward for the new millennium. A new generation of leftist presidents advocated a democratic socialist revolution, known as the pink tide. When Brazilian and Chilean economies collapsed, their military governments lost credibility and were forced to surrender power to civilians in the late 1980s. However, the military continued to control the elections. The new governments implemented neoliberalism to bring the economies under control. The declining standards of living throughout the 1990s revived mass mobilization of the left, resulting in the election of two of the most effective leaders of the pink tide era: Lula DaSilva, a former union leader who became president of Brazil, and Michelle Bachelet, the first female president of Chile. Each improved their economies and the standards of living, dropping poverty levels, and improving social programs. Term limits ended their successful presidencies. However, years later accusations of corruption destroyed their legacy. In 2019, neoliberalism returned to Chile while Brazilians, fed up with the political class, both right and left, elected anti-establishment candidate Jair Bolsonaro, a populist longing for the military era who once said, “A policeman who doesn’t kill isn’t a policeman.” In Venezuela, the collapse of oil prices destroyed the economy during the 1980s. Again, neoliberal policies stabilized the economy, but the poor paid the price. In 1998, a former military officer, Hugo Chavez became president, promising to fight corruption, reduce the power of the elite, and empower the poor. His presidency benefited from rising oil prices, creating a clientelistic political system consisting of showering favors (patronage) on his supporters, while refusing to help non-party members. His aim was a socialist revolution, but he died of cancer in 2013. Nicolas Maduro became his political heir just as oil prices and the economy collapsed again. Despite fierce domestic unrest, as of 2020, Maduro has continued to hold onto power thanks to Chavez’s powerful clientelistic system. The Pink Tide: Presidents Lula (center) and Chavez (right) during Bachelet’s Presidential inauguration (2006). By Agencia Brasil, CC BY 3.0 BR. Conclusion Latin America has been haunted by the legacy of a hierarchical society. The past seventy years have been a constant fight in favor of and against the structures that support it. Liberals and nationalists, dictators and populists, conservatives and progressives, military regimes and reformers, neoliberals, and the pink tide are different names for similar forces. These forces have kept the pendulum of Latin American politics swinging left to right and back again for decades. Today, both neoliberalism and the pink tide are losing credibility. Where will the pendulum swing next? Author bio Alejandro Quintana is an associate professor of History at St. John’s University in New York City. His research and teaching focus on state formation, nation-building, nationalism, revolutions, and social movements, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What is an “institution,” and why did leaders want to create them on a global scale after WWII?Why was the United Nations created, and what does it do?What were the two crucial economic institutions that formed after 1945, and what were their original goals?What is “economic liberalization,” and how did it differ from the original goals of global economic institutions?How do non-governmental institutions promote change on a global level?What are some the positive and negative impacts global institutions have had on societies and human communities? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. Since this is the first reading assignment of the course, you may not connect it to much other than the knowledge you already have. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: According to the author, the distinction between political, economic, and non-governmental institutions “isn’t always very neat.” What are some of the ways in which these institutions overlap?How have international institutions changed our world? Do you think these differences are the same everywhere, or do they vary across communities? Why might this be? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. International Institutions Inside an auditorium, a man stands at a podium on a stage, with several others seated next to him. Behind them, on the stage, are several others standing in front of flags representing the United Nations. The auditorium seats are filled with people watching the presenters. By Eman M. Elshaikh After World War II, many nations around the world thought, “Okay, enough is enough!” International institutions with long-term plans were created with the goal of making a healthier, fairer, more stable and peaceful world. Introduction After the destruction of the Second World War and the hardships caused by the Great Depression (1929-1939), many nations of the world faced challenges. Leaders looked for solutions to global conflict, poverty, injustice and instability. Intergovernmental groups like the League of Nations (1920-1946) had tried and failed to promote peace and economic security. So, world leaders came together to think of a new approach. Their ideas led to the creation of several new institutions. An institution is an organized social structure that tends to be complex and long-lasting. Institutions affect how communities are organized by influencing behavior, customs, and laws. In this case, leaders wanted to create institutions that would help communities or networks of people. These institutions would work toward particular social, political, or economic goals. The new institutions formed at the end of the Second World War were political, economic, and even non- governmental. But as you'll see, the distinction between these isn't always very neat. As we discuss these world institutions, we'll consider how effective they were at influencing people's lives. How did the world change as a result of these new institutions? A world government? The development of political institutions The League of Nations, formed in 1918, had been intended to prevent another world war. But in 1943, at the height of World War II, it had obviously failed. Global leaders knew they needed a new institution that could carry out similar goals but in a different way. So in 1945 they formed the United Nations (UN). The emblem of the UN is an image of a global map inside a rounded circle, which is bordered by an image of a wreath.Emblem of the United Nations. By Spiffenwiki, Public Domain. The emblem of the UN is an image of a global map inside a rounded circle, which is bordered by an image of a wreath. Emblem of the United Nations. By Spiffenwiki, Public Domain. Headquartered in New York, the United Nations was designed to provide what the League of Nations had not: collective security. This basically means that all members (meaning nations, not individuals) have a duty to come together as an international community and resist aggression. Ideally, this means preventing aggression in the first place. But the United Nations does have some tools for dealing with aggression and conflict if they occur. One of these tools is the United Nation's judicial arm, which deals with legal issues. This judicial arm is called the International Court of Justice (ICJ) headquartered in the Hague, a city in the Netherlands. The Court's role is to resolve disputes between member states1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript and to advise the United Nations' various agencies. The United Nations has also created measures for protecting global health and human rights. Perhaps the best example of this is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is a set of standards for human rights, the treatment of women and children, and labor. Another example was the UN's creation, in 1984, of a special agency called the World Health Organization (WHO). This agency's goal is to ensure public health globally. A world map shows the UN founding members and their territories in 1945. Most of the areas on the map are in light blue, showing them to be founding members, and nearly the entire continent of Africa is dark blue, showing them to be territories of the founding areas.The UN in 1945: founding members in light blue, protectorates and territories of the founding members in dark blue. Public Domain. A world map shows the UN founding members and their territories in 1945. Most of the areas on the map are in light blue, showing them to be founding members, and nearly the entire continent of Africa is dark blue, showing them to be territories of the founding areas. The UN in 1945: founding members in light blue, protectorates and territories of the founding members in dark blue. Public Domain. So, the UN clearly serves many different functions, all aimed at a better, healthier, fairer, and more peaceful world. This has led some to describe the UN as a "world government" that controls an international community. But it functions quite differently from a government. The United Nations is not like a sovereign nation that can punish its citizens. Instead, it must influence its member states through treaties, monitoring, special procedures, and commissions. These are definitely impressive aims, but has the United Nations met these goals? The language of rights that it sponsored has certainly been influential, shifting how people think about individuals, citizens, and states. Though the United Nations isn't always able to enforce humanitarian standards, these standards seem to have affected people's beliefs and behaviors. Image of the WHO flag: the flag features the emblem of the UN, an image of a global map inside a rounded circle, bordered by an image of a wreath. In the center of the emblem is a snake wrapped around a pole. The background of the flag is blue.The World Health Organization flag. By WHO, Public Domain. Image of the WHO flag: the flag features the emblem of the UN, an image of a global map inside a rounded circle, bordered by an image of a wreath. In the center of the emblem is a snake wrapped around a pole. The background of the flag is blue. The World Health Organization flag. By WHO, Public Domain. Has the United Nations eliminated conflict and human rights abuses? Absolutely not. Over half a century after the United Nations was formed, there are still many violent conflicts and human rights abuses. But we have to look at the evidence and think about the scale of the conflicts. Does the evidence show an overall reduction of violence? Have human rights abuses increased or decreased over the decades? And for whom have these measures been most effective? To answer these questions, we can consider evidence like human rights reports, changes in population, and mortality rates. We know the shifts are occurring, but it's a lot trickier to figure out what's causing them. A photograph of a woman holding up a very large document, the Spanish Language translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By Franklin D Roosevelt Library, Public Domain. A photograph of a woman holding up a very large document, the Spanish Language translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By Franklin D Roosevelt Library, Public Domain. Globalizing trade: The economic institutions The simple fact that the United Nation was formed shows that countries were really concerned about reducing violent conflict after the end of World War II. But the violence of war wasn't the only concern. Many leaders were also worried about economic instability and poverty. After the Great Depression, most world economies were still struggling. Even before the war ended in 1944, some leaders met in the United States to address this problem. Their goal was to think of policies for regulating the global economy. They wanted to prevent the ups and downs of the interwar period and ensure stable currencies. Out of these discussions, two crucial institutions were formed. The first was the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank. The original goals of these institutions were to help control the destructive ups and downs of global markets. They were created to ensure that the world economy was growing in a balanced way. The original goals of the IMF and the World Bank were protecting employment and standards of living. They also wanted to make sure trade was balanced and not dominated by specific countries. Both institutions therefore invested in helping member countries develop their resources and productive powers. The IMF's written mission reflected this, with its emphasis on international cooperation, balanced growth of international trade, and stability. Its initial goals were largely focused on regulation. The World Bank had a slightly different focus: reconstruction and development. Working together, the idea was that they would help member states share risk, resources, and information. This was meant to be non-political. Each state's voting power was aligned to its economic contribution. This non- political style was important, because member states wanted to avoid the nationalist policies that had made the Great Depression so devastating. Instead, these institutions worked by creating more cooperation. The IMF, for example, gave loans to developing countries to cover trade deficits (shortages). The World Bank made massive investments in the form of debt relief and reconstruction projects, particularly in Europe. Those were the original goals of these two organizations. But over time, this changed. The goal became opening up markets around the world, which is called economic liberalization. The idea is that markets would be less regulated, allowing networks of exchange to operate more freely. The international institution that most pushed for economic liberalization is the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was founded in 1995. How did these institutions change the world? Over several decades, the global markets did in fact become increasingly connected into broad networks. This allowed money and investment to move a lot more easily. These institutions also played crucial roles in managing financial crises and economic transitions. For example, they encouraged centrally-planned economies from the former Soviet Union to move toward open markets. Non-governmental institutions Another type of institution that attempts to make change at the global level are international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). From as early as the nineteenth century, organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross and Oxfam International have worked to tackle global health problems and poverty. More recently, human rights advocacy organizations, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have had a major effect on how people understand their role in the world. These organizations have allowed many more people see themselves as global citizens participating in an international community. Environmental activist organizations like Greenpeace have had a similar effect. That's because these groups have increasingly used media campaigns to raise awareness. These campaigns promote a feeling of global responsibility. This belief in the importance of common action highlights the ways these institutions shape people's communities. When you think about it, this is a powerful—and effective—belief. INGOs2^22squared like Amnesty International have been effective by building upon the United Nations' human rights efforts. They've called attention to abuses and pushed for violent acts like rape to be defined as war crimes. They also helped mobilize world opinion against things like nuclear testing and the racist system of Apartheid in South Africa. How did they accomplish this? By changing world opinion. And that's no small thing. It creates a powerful feeling of connectedness and shared responsibility. It's so powerful that American President Dwight Eisenhower once said, when asked to continue nuclear testing, "the new thermo-nuclear weapons are tremendously powerful; however, they are not… as powerful as is world opinion today in obliging the United States to follow certain lines of policy." Some conclusions The world is now connected in unprecedented ways because of international political and economic institutions and global NGOs. They've created broader, more fluid networks. And they've also created greater, more encompassing senses of community. But these connections have not always been even. The effects have been partial, inconsistent, short-lived, or even negative in some cases. They haven't always managed to prevent crises. Many people get left behind. Also, in pushing economic liberalization, these institutions have resulted in fewer social protections. In many cases, in order to receive debt relief, loans, or other investment, countries have been forced to reduce social protections like healthcare. Collectively, these changes have created more uniformity on a global scale—for better or for worse. [Notes] Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to this article, why did anti-migrant protests happen in Europe after 2015?What country hosts the most refugees, and what did they receive for limiting illegal refugee migration into the European Union?How did nationalism shape governments’ approaches to dealing with refugees and migration in general?How did decolonization lead to an increase in refugees?According to the author, what are some reasons that refugees migrate and seek refuge?Why do some nations, in particular wealthy nations, allow migrant workers to come into their countries?How did wealthy nations react to increasing refugee and labor migration? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How do you think globalization has changed the ways that people have migrated in the last 100 years? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. A Century of Refugees By Bennett Sherry Over the course of the twentieth century, millions of people have been forced to flee their homes, becoming refugees. Meanwhile, governments around the world have increased their attempts to control and limit migration. Crisis for who? In 2015, the news was filled with headlines about a European refugee crisis. The Syrian Civil War had displaced millions of people, and many of these refugees fled to Europe. With other refugees fleeing conflicts in North and East Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia, and Southeast Asia, the world had more displaced people than at any point since the Second World War—over 65 million in 2015. Listening to Western news media, it sounded like all the refugees in the world were flooding into Europe. Charts and images, designed to raise fears of masses of refugees entering Europe, circulated through various news and social media outlets. This reinforced the idea that Europe was about to be overwhelmed. Soon, anti-migrant, anti-refugee, and anti-Muslim protests filled European streets. Map showing asylum applications and illegal border crossings to European countries from January 1 to June 30, 2015. By Maximilian Dorrbecker, CC BY-SA 2.0. Map showing the country of origin for refugees applying for asylum in Europe from January 1 to June 30, 2015. By Maximilian Dorrbecker, CC BY-SA 2.5 Migrants arriving in Slovenia, 2015. From the Republika Slovenija, CC BY 3.0. Syrian and Iraqi refugees from Turkey arrive in Greece by boat after crossing the Aegean Sea in 2015. By Ggia, CC BY-SA But was this really a European crisis? Over a million migrants applied for asylum in Europe in 2015, up from 216,000 in 2014, mostly from Syria. While these are big numbers, very few of the world’s refugees ever make it to Europe. Even during the “crisis” of 2015–2016, European nations accepted only a tiny fraction of the world’s total. Since the Syrian Civil War started, Turkey has consistently hosted the most refugees—with 4 million in 2019. In 2016, ten countries hosted over half of the world’s refugees. These ten countries were among the world’s poorest—together accounting for only 2.5 percent of the global economy. Refugee migrations to wealthy countries draw the most media attention, but it is the poorest nations that carry the majority of the burden. The European Union (EU) imposes strict border controls, shifting the burden of refugees to neighboring nations like Turkey. Syria’s ongoing conflict has pushed millions of refugees to gather in Turkey as they seek a new home in Europe. Most do not make it. In 2016, the EU signed a deal with Turkey under which the Turkish government promised to prevent illegal refugee migration into the EU. In return, the EU agreed to pay Turkey ¤6 billion.1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript How did this situation come to be? Why are there so many refugees in the world today? Why are so few of them in wealthy countries? Nationalism, decolonization, and economic liberalization all played a role. The story begins a century before the 2015 crisis, with the First World War. Nationalism, world wars, and decolonization People have been fleeing conflict and persecution for millennia, but it wasn’t until the early twentieth century that refugee emerged as an official category. For the first time, governments thought about refugees as a “problem” that needed a solution. Countries created international organizations in efforts to care for refugees and control migration. These efforts were in large part driven by changes in how governments thought about national borders. After the First World War, governments got really interested in regulating migration. Passports became more common, and new laws defined different types of migration. Nationalism played a large role in creating stricter citizenship and migration laws. The First World War tore apart the Ottoman, Austrian, and Russian empires. The German and Chinese empires shrunk and were replaced by republics. As new nations rose from the ruins of old empires, nationalist leaders focused on building a common national identity. In addition to a common language and culture, many leaders also chose to focus on getting rid of people who, in their vision, did not qualify as citizens. For example, in the 1920s, Turkey expelled 1.5 million people they called “Greeks,” and Greece kicked out 500,000 people they called “Turks.” Their homes were taken away and they were forced from the nation where they had been for generations and moved to the nation where leaders said they “belonged.” The Second World War redrew borders and broke apart empires. For example, hundreds of thousands of European Jewish refugees fled persecution before and during the war. Many eventually made their way to the British Mandate of Palestine, where Jewish settlements had been established since the late nineteenth century. From 1947 to 1949, a conflict between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians led to the establishment of the state of Israel. This conflict displaced over 700,000 Arab Palestinian refugees from their homes. Greek refugees flee their homes in the city of Smyrna, Turkey following a massacre of the city’s ethnically Greek residents. Public domain. Decolonization after the Second World War sparked massive refugee migrations. India won its independence from Britain in 1947. As part of independence, British India was divided into two independent nations: India and Pakistan.2^22squared About 12 million people chose or were forced to leave their homes based on their religion. As Muslims in India were forced to relocate to Pakistan, and Hindus in Pakistan were forced to move to India, violence frequently broke out, killing hundreds of thousands. Decolonization conflicts in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, Indonesia, and many other nations produced more refugees, as did the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Ethnic, religious, and political groups struggled for control of their new nations, and the winners expelled or killed their enemies. An overcrowded train transports refugees during the partition of India in 1947. Public domain. Why seek refuge? By the 1960s, Western European nations had started to recover from the economic devastation of World War II, sparking a demand for cheap labor. Former colonies were left with more people than jobs, giving rise to the migrant worker. People from across Latin America, the Philippines, West Africa, and the Indian subcontinent all migrated to places like the United States, France, and Britain for work. The governments of wealthy nations encouraged labor migration because it was profitable. In the US, migrants from Mexico helped fill agricultural labor shortages. Turkish “guest workers” propelled West Germany’s economic recovery in the 1960s. Migrant workers moved because they wanted to make more money or build a better life. Others were pushed by major trends you may have already learned about. One cause was the violence that resulted from the Cold War or more recent conflicts. Many also suffered from what is often called structural violence—the long-term, cumulative effects of poverty, climate change, and ineffective government. Beneath all these motivations was the problem of inequality. That is, while people in some regions suffered, others enjoyed a far wealthier and healthier way of life that seemed to offer hope for better opportunities. Many migrated legally, but many others moved through irregular channels to avoid legal restrictions. As migrant laborers undertook dangerous journeys across deserts and the Mediterranean Sea, their paths crossed with refugees fleeing their homes. In many cases, the line between labor migrants and refugees was blurred, giving rise to the category of economic refugee. In many cases, migrant workers and refugees ended up as indentured servants controlled by human traffickers while they paid back debts. As nations increasingly closed their borders and passed laws regulating migration, more and more migrants found themselves at the mercy of human traffickers. Building Fortress Europe As the numbers of labor migrants and refugees increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Western European countries began to implement immigration policies, often described as “Fortress Europe.” These policies opened borders between countries in the European Union, but placed restrictions on immigration from outside the EU, especially from countries in Africa and the Middle East. All around the world, national governments opened their borders to trade and investment. At the same time, they hardened their borders to migrants and refugees. In many cases—such as Mexican immigrants in the US and Muslim immigrants in France and Germany—labor migrants and refugees alike became less welcome. A map of countries whose passport holders can travel freely to the Schengen zone. The Schengen agreement was signed in 1985 and opened up borders within the European Union. Notice how few African, Asian, and Middle Eastern nations are included for visa-free travel in the Schengen zone. By Gordon Cheng, CC BY-SA 3.0. The century of the refugee? The twentieth century has been called “the century of the refugee.” But 20 years into the twenty-first century, it’s apparent that migration—of political refugees, economic migrants, environmental refugees, and many others—will remain a feature of life on Earth. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in 2019, there were 70.8 million displaced people in the world. That’s larger than the populations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, combined. Many refugee camps, once intended as temporary havens, have become sprawling cities with their own economies. The United Nations created the UNHCR in 1950. They believed it would be a temporary agency that could “solve the problem of the refugee” within a few years. It started with an annual budget of $300,000 and a staff of 34. In 2019, the agency had a budget of $8.6 billion and employed 16,803 staffers in 134 countries. Refugee migration is not a temporary problem. The Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan is one of the largest refugee camps in the world. Opened in 2012, it has become a permanent city, home to tens of thousands. Public domain. While the global number of refugees and displaced people has increased, asylum applications in Europe have returned to pre-2015 levels. The crisis depicted in those dramatic charts and pictures appears to be over. But European countries have not relaxed the restrictions they put in place in 2015. Governments continue to embrace economic globalization while closing their borders to migrants. Each year, thousands of refugees die on boats crossing the Mediterranean. Many of them drown in sight of EU ships. Migrants have increasingly been treated as political pawns. Citizens of wealthy nations are happy to welcome migrants when they need their work and accept refugees when it is politically convenient. But as migrant communities have grown and as they have begun to influence culture in their host countries, some people have reacted with fear and anger. We describe these reactions as xenophobic—fear of foreigners. Political parties have used scare tactics to turn public opinion against migrants—especially refugees from Muslim-majority countries. Anti-migrant platforms have propelled far-right candidates to political office in Hungary, Poland, Greece, Britain, the United States, and other nations. As climate change and economic globalization continue to intensify, refugees will continue to flee environmental and economic conditions as well as political persecution and war. As governments place more restrictions on immigration, more migrants will be forced to cross borders illegally, endangering their lives in the process. A Polish crowd protests immigration from Muslim countries to Europe in 2015. By Silar, CC BY-SA 4.0. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt’s World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why does the author suggest that Russian peasants would have been excited upon hearing about the Russian Revolution?How were the tsar’s actions one of the causes of the revolution?Why did Russia have a different experience with nationalist fervor than its European neighbors?After the tsar stepped down, why did the Provisional Committee eventually lose power to the Bolsheviks?How did the Bolsheviks change both production and distribution as well as communities in Russia? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: At the end of the last era, you learned about socialist responses to the changes of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. Based on your reading of this article, do you think World War I would have been different if Russia and other nations had embraced communist systems before 1914?What evidence from this article supports or challenges the idea that World War I was a total war? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Power of One: The Russian Revolution Painted depiction shows a large crowd of people crowded around a person standing on a platform in the middle of an industrial street. By Nicole Magie Why does one revolution in one place in one year matter so much? The Russian Revolution in 1917 not only transformed Russia, but also set the stage for a changing world over the next one hundred years. Imagine this … Imagine being a Russian peasant woman in 1916 and watching the crops rot into the ground. So many men are fighting in the Great War that there aren't enough hands to harvest the crops—even with women like you working hard in the fields. Imagine that your cousin lives in Russia's capital city of Petrograd and works with other women in the factories. Every day, she lines up outside the grocery store at dawn before she has to be at the factory for her shift. But she always leaves without enough fuel to keep her house warm and with too little food to feed her family. Imagine hearing reports from the battlefield, where both your husband and brother are hopefully still alive and fighting. You hear the men are running out of basic supplies too—even ammunition. They are ordered to fight unarmed or by taking rifles from their comrades when they die in battle. Imagine that you and your neighbors have been living like this for a few years. And then the winter of 1916–1917 arrives—and it proves to be a bitterly cold one. Now imagine hearing about the death of the tsar (the emperor of Russia) in 1918 and the rise of a new leader. This leader proposes an immediate plan to not only establish peace and bring the men home but also to provide necessities for families like yours. He also creates a long-term plan to shift the power from the ruling upper class. He will shift that power to poor but hard-working people like you and your family, who are laboring in the factories and the fields. This man, Vladimir Lenin, has written about his ideas for years. But now his socialist political party—the Bolsheviks1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript—has taken leadership of the collapsed Russian Empire. Can you understand why Lenin brought hope that your desperate world could one day have peace and order? Photograph of Lenin, standing on a platform, with crowds of people surrounding him as he speaks. The painting used as the cover image looks to be modeled off of this photograph.Vladimir Lenin giving a speech in Moscow’s Sverdlov Square to the Red Army who were leaving to fight in the Polish-Soviet War, 1920. By Grigory Goldstein, public domain. Photograph of Lenin, standing on a platform, with crowds of people surrounding him as he speaks. The painting used as the cover image looks to be modeled off of this photograph. Vladimir Lenin giving a speech in Moscow’s Sverdlov Square to the Red Army who were leaving to fight in the Polish-Soviet War, 1920. By Grigory Goldstein, public domain. Backstory of the Russian Revolution The Russian Revolution of 1917 was an important event for the entire world, not only Russia. To see how this all came to be, let's look back about a decade. In 1905, the Russian tsar, Nicholas II, refused to withdraw from a humiliating war with Japan. In response, many Russian people took to the streets in peaceful protests and marched to the Winter Palace in Petrograd (St. Petersburg). But on a day that became known as "Bloody Sunday," the tsar's military forces killed hundreds of protesters. This sparked massive protests and civil war across the country. The protests only ended when the tsar agreed to form an assembly of representatives known as the Duma. A painting of a snow-covered street, with groups of people on either side. On one side, a uniformed group of people looks to be attacking the people on the other side, many of whom have fallen. An unknown artist’s impression of Bloody Sunday, 1905. By Ivan Vladimirov, public domain A painting of a snow-covered street, with groups of people on either side. On one side, a uniformed group of people looks to be attacking the people on the other side, many of whom have fallen. An unknown artist’s impression of Bloody Sunday, 1905. By Ivan Vladimirov, public domain During this 1905 civil war, Russian workers organized and began forming groups called soviets. These soviets (workers' groups) gave them a community identity as workers who came together for a common purpose. Meanwhile, in many other countries, nationalism was effectively unifying people based upon shared cultures and identities. But in Russia, there was almost no middle class and very little common "national" identity to build upon. Many people were not ethnic Russians, and less than half the population even spoke the Russian language. Russia was geographically massive, socially diverse, and economically divided. Political revolutionaries such as Vladimir Lenin seized upon these divisions and began to unite people into one community based upon their roles as workers. The Russian Revolution of 1917: What happened? Why does it matter? A decade later, Russia had lost more people than any other country in World War I. The soldiers, the factory workers, and the peasants were all feeling desperate shortages. As the bitterly cold winter of 1916–1917 wore on, the people were beginning to break. Protests began on March 7, 1917, with factory workers striking in Petrograd. Women took to the street the following day to celebrate International Woman's Day and joined the factory workers to protest the government and its policy of food rationing. The Russian people were fed up with the tsar and his policies, and they desperately wanted bread to feed their families. Soon the streets were filled with about 200,000 protesters. They called for Tsar Nicholas II to step down, for the Russian military to exit World War I, and for the rationing of food and fuel to end. In the following days, the city turned chaotic. Portions of the military stationed in Petrograd rebelled and joined the protesters while the officers fled to the Winter Palace. The tsar responded by taking away the powers of the Duma. However, the Duma decided to appoint a Provisional Committee in an attempt to regain control of the city. On March 15, Nicholas II abdicated (gave up his power) and left the Provisional Committee of the Duma to govern Russia. The Provisional Committee vowed to continue fighting with the Allies against the Central Powers. But this was not what the people wanted. The Bolsheviks used this to their advantage and appealed to the Russian people for support. The result was an agreement where the Duma and the Petrograd soviet council would share power. Photograph of many women marching down the street, holding up a banner. Women gathered for International Women’s Day on 8 March 1917 in Petrograd. As more women joined the crowd, they began protesting and demanding bread from the tsar. This date marks the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917. By State Museum of Political History of Russia, public domain. Photograph of many women marching down the street, holding up a banner. Women gathered for International Women’s Day on 8 March 1917 in Petrograd. As more women joined the crowd, they began protesting and demanding bread from the tsar. This date marks the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917. By State Museum of Political History of Russia, public domain. The first phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917 was complete, but the revolution was not over. In the months that followed, the Duma supporters and the Soviet council clashed over what reforms to institute. One of the main issues was whether to keep fighting in World War I. There were also divisions within the Soviet councils across Russia, with certain groups competing to gain control. The situation in Russia was still tense and workers continued to protest. During this period, the question became: What group or faction will ultimately gain control of the government? The answer eventually became Vladimir Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks. They saw the continued protests as a sign of the class struggle necessary to establish their socialist form of government that would eventually be called communism. In November 1917 the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, took control of the capital of Petrograd. They immediately removed the Provisional Government. Then they arrested those in opposition parties. In March 1918, the Bolsheviks made another move that helped them gain more support from the people: Russia signed a treaty with Germany that ended the German invasion of Russia and pulled the Russians out of World War I. Although they were out of the global war, Russia was still in a civil war. Bolsheviks continued fighting their opponents in the Provisional Government and from other political parties until 1921. The Bolsheviks were victorious. But after almost 10 years of fighting both a foreign enemy and an internal war, the Russian people were still suffering. A poster of a woman, standing in front of a building with her arm stretched out toward the building. The poster is intended to show “what the October Revolution gave to the female worker and peasant” with answers like “kindergarten” and “library” written on the buildings.Soviet propaganda poster, 1920. Showing “what the October Revolution gave to the female worker and peasant” with answers like “kindergarten” and “library” written on the buildings. Public domain A poster of a woman, standing in front of a building with her arm stretched out toward the building. The poster is intended to show “what the October Revolution gave to the female worker and peasant” with answers like “kindergarten” and “library” written on the buildings. Soviet propaganda poster, 1920. Showing “what the October Revolution gave to the female worker and peasant” with answers like “kindergarten” and “library” written on the buildings. Public domain Now we know who was in control, but how would they run the country? The Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin made changes that established communism in opposition to capitalism. This meant that land and the means of production (like factories) belonged to the people. Lenin almost immediately instituted reforms to eliminate the private and individual ownership of land and factories. Communism, a form of socialism in which the state controls the economy, also changed ideas of community. Under Lenin, the Bolsheviks wanted to unite the people through class connections based on their roles as workers. Lenin viewed class as the grand unifier and wanted to reduce the importance of other types of communal connections like religion. Everyone would be one community of laborers working for the common good of everyone in the nation. Lenin promised peace, stability, and provisions, but also power to people who had never held this power. While we know that the revolution deeply shaped this one country, what about the world? First, by removing Russia from the conflict, the revolution changed the dynamics of World War I. Second, it represents a major shift from empire to nation-state. The last three land-based empires in the world ended in 1911 (China), 1917 (Russia) and 1922 (the Ottoman Empire). Third, the Russian Revolution led to the first communist nation-state in the world. Communism became an alternative to capitalism and a huge political force during the twentieth century. The influence of communism was not only felt in Russia and other countries like China where it took hold, but also over the course of the almost half-century Cold War that played out across the world. After the Russian Revolution But for the moment, our story pauses in Russia. By 1922, both the world war and Russia's civil war were over, and Russia was now a nation-state. It was now the Soviet Union (aka the U.S.S.R. or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Under Lenin, there was more bread, land, and peace but at the price of repression. There was also a new way of organizing a national community. Although Lenin died in 1924, communist leadership would continue under the Soviet Union's new leader Josef Stalin. The transition from the Russian Empire to the Soviet Union had answered the questions of who would lead and how they would lead. Now the question was, how would they maintain power? While the notion of capitalism had been around for over a century, communism seemed fresh and young. So, how would a young communist Russia survive within a world of capitalist nations? And how would it do so within this geographically vast and socially diverse country that it was hoping—even forcing—to unite under this new way of building community? As you continue to learn the history that followed this one moment, you'll see that these challenges had a huge impact. These challenges would not only change one country in one year. They would change the course of world history for the remainder of the twentieth century. [Notes] Author bio Nicole Magie is an Assistant Professor at Olivet College in Michigan. She is also a long-time member of the World History Association and the Midwest World History Association, and has written for World History Connected. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Where did Grace and Aminah come from, and why were they seeking work in the United Arab Emirates?How did Grace and Aminah get permits to travel?How were Grace and Aminah’s experiences in the UAE different?How did the Ugandan government react to the experiences of its citizens like Aminah?How did the artist use art and design to show the different experiences of Grace and Aminah? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of Ugandan Migrants to the UAE support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about how different communities have experienced globalization in the contemporary era? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Ugandan Migrants (Graphic Biography) Writer: Lindsay Ehrisman Artist: Liz Clarke Aminah and Grace are aliases given to two Ugandan women who are among the millions of migrants who leave their homes, temporarily or permanently, seeking work opportunities. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

Authoritarianism in Japan [[header image]] By David Eacker Japanese militarism built the foundation of state-centered authoritarianism during the interwar period. Introduction Introduction In the late nineteenth century, Japan began building an empire to rival the powers of Europe, Russia, the United States, and China. Their empire survived World War I, continued into the 1920s and 1930s, but finally collapsed in defeat during World War II. This article considers how Japanese imperialism can be compared to fascism and authoritarianism during the interwar period. Militarism in the early empire The Japanese government was pretty busy in the 1890s. They had no intention of being colonized like their neighbor, China, had been. Instead, they would build an empire of their own! But to grow an empire they had to do two things: deal with the internal reforms going on in Japan and catch up with industrialization. Only then could they become a global power. [[image 1]] One of the main strategies pursued by the Japanese was a close relationship between civilian and military authority. They modeled their strategy on Germany’s approach in the 1880s. Under Bismarck’s tough military leadership, Germany had crashed onto the world scene as a major power in a short period of time. If the Germans could do it, the reformers thought, why not the Japanese? Borrowing from German law, Japan did not put elected officials in charge of the military. Instead, they gave the emperor total control. This allowed the military to act without answering to a civilian government. Because the emperor had little actual political power in Japan, the army and navy were kind of on their own, free to conduct their affairs more or less as they saw fit. As we will see, these factors shaped imperial Japan’s later history in important ways. A military free of civilian oversight had two big advantages for a state trying to industrialize and build an empire: First, the military could inspire national pride by claiming decisive victory in wars. For example, Japan’s conflict with China in 1894–1895 gained territories for the empire and in doing so stirred mass patriotic feelings at home. In this way, military success linked domestic national pride to imperial conquest abroad.Second, lack of civilian control meant that the military could determine colonial policy on its own. This gave the Japanese military the power to shape imperial politics and act like an authoritarian government of their own. First, the military could inspire national pride by claiming decisive victory in wars. For example, Japan’s conflict with China in 1894–1895 gained territories for the empire and in doing so stirred mass patriotic feelings at home. In this way, military success linked domestic national pride to imperial conquest abroad. Second, lack of civilian control meant that the military could determine colonial policy on its own. This gave the Japanese military the power to shape imperial politics and act like an authoritarian government of their own. Together, these factors made up the fundamental principles of Japanese militarism: raising military power and using it for political gain. In the next section, we examine the case of Japanese Manchuria to see how militarism helped transform Japan into a fascist, authoritarian empire. Militarism and the rise of the fascist imperialism By 1930, Japanese leaders saw themselves as facing two potential enemies. One was the young Soviet Union. The other was any western liberal capitalist country, such as the United States. Facing these ideologically diverse soon- to-be foes, Japan realized they had something in common with two other insurgent regimes of the interwar period: Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. These countries also saw liberalism (U.S. and others) and communism (Soviets) as their political foes. Meanwhile, the Great Depression was wrecking economies everywhere on the map – and it was just getting started. As Japan entered the 1930s, the world was becoming more and more dangerous and unstable. It was in this environment that the Japanese army invaded the northeast Asian area of Manchuria in 1931. That event illustrates the role of military independence in Japanese imperialism during this period. Acting on its own, the army made up a false pretext that blamed the war on Chinese forces in Manchuria. They then set out to conquer the region. When all was said and done two years later, the army had placed a large amount of new territory under its direct control and turned the region into a puppet state of Japan. In purely military terms, the operation was a tremendous success. But the conquest of Manchuria had broader economic and political implications as well. For one thing, the occupation brought many resources under the control of Japanese armed forces. This raised the difficult question of how they could run the new territory economically. They decided on an arrangement in which the military regime kept a tight grip on the region’s economy to ensure its productivity. This “controlled economy” resembled Stalin’s command economy in the Soviet Union. Both systems asserted state control over the economy in the name of national strength. The controlled economy model started in Manchuria, but it did not remain limited to that region. It quickly spread throughout the empire, upending more than two decades of capitalist, free market economic policy along the way. This shift brought significant changes to the structure of the empire. One such change was that almost all of the resources of the empire were channeled into support for the war machinery of Japanese imperialism. Over time, the lines between state and military blurred until they nearly vanished. Functionally, the whole empire – including Japan itself – became a military state. At the same time, the state expanded into more and more areas of life, in order to direct the energies and resources of its subjects into a sprawling imperial war effort that never seemed to end. Historian Louise Young sees these developments revealing two trends: The first was the military’s rise as a political force that “connected the inside and the outside” of the empire. By taking over the state, the military was able to funnel domestic resources into its wars. It also used propaganda to sway Japanese public sentiment toward supporting the empire’s overseas conflicts. In these ways, it linked the homeland to imperial conquests abroad.The second was the belief that the state alone could offer solutions to the problems of modern life. This belief was in practice deeply authoritarian. It considered obedience to the state to be the supreme virtue a person could have. The first was the military’s rise as a political force that “connected the inside and the outside” of the empire. By taking over the state, the military was able to funnel domestic resources into its wars. It also used propaganda to sway Japanese public sentiment toward supporting the empire’s overseas conflicts. In these ways, it linked the homeland to imperial conquests abroad. The second was the belief that the state alone could offer solutions to the problems of modern life. This belief was in practice deeply authoritarian. It considered obedience to the state to be the supreme virtue a person could have. These two ideas formed two of the pillars of Japan’s “fascist imperialism.” Other pillars included a hatred of both communism and liberalism, and a belief in Japanese ethnic and racial superiority. Like the Italian Fascists, Japanese imperialists often depicted their conquests as part of a mission to “civilize” peoples seen as less advanced. But the grim realities of occupation in Manchuria and elsewhere in the empire were less civil, marked more by violence and economic exploitation. [[image 2]] Conclusion On its way to becoming a world power in the late nineteenth century, Japan borrowed from the principles of German militarism to design its imperial state. One effect of this was that the Japanese military gained a high degree of independence. Following the annexation of Manchuria, the military leadership adopted a controlled economy designed to funnel all resources into the war effort. This kind of controlled economy started in the overseas empire but soon became practice in Japan’s homeland as well. There, it gave rise to an authoritarian and, ultimately, fascist system. In these respects, imperial Japan between the wars has a lot of similarities to fascism in Europe in this era, although it was not identical. Author bio David Eacker is a Ph.D. student in History at Indiana University–Bloomington. His research focuses on modern Europe with an emphasis on Germany and Britain from 1789 to 1918. He is currently working on a dissertation about missionaries, theology, and empire in the 18th and 19th centuries. David has worked for two academic journals, Theory and Society and The American Historical Review. [Sources and attributions]

Civil Rights and Global Liberation By Bennett Sherry A worldwide struggle for decolonization, plus a struggle for racial equality and civil rights in the United States, became entangled in the Cold War that followed WWII. Shared struggles: Civil rights, decolonization, and gender If you live in the United States, you’ve probably heard about some of the major figures in the civil rights movement. These include the struggles for racial equality, desegregation, and voting rights. You’ve probably encountered Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Selma, and the Million-Man March. You have heard these names and events and words. Still other names, like Fannie Lou Hamer and Bayard Rustin may have come up in your U.S. History course. Yet, while the civil rights movement was a key struggle in American history, these people and organizations were also part of a wider global network. Each of these American activists connected their struggle at home to decolonization movements around the world. That’s because in some ways, the Civil Rights Movement was also a decolonization movement. Twin victories: Racial equality and World War II During the Second World War, the Allies made promises about racial equality and self-determination, for their citizens and people in their colonies. Both the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contained guarantees of racial equality as a fundamental human right. But many African Americans fighting in the war distrusted these promises made by white, imperialist, and racist governments. Like people in the colonies, black Americans had already been deceived after the First World War. Despite fighting for the U.S., they had come home to a campaign of discrimination that included the lynching of black veterans in 1919. So why, asked many, should they fight Hitler and save democracy if they’d still return home to segregation, voter suppression, and lynching? Thus during World War II, African American newspapers launched the Double-V Campaign: victory against Nazi racism abroad and victory against racism in America. A National Association for the Advancement of Colored People poster showing the NAACP strangling a crow labeled “Jim Crow” ¬– representing racist laws in the U.S. – with Nazi and Japanese flags attached to its legs. Library of Congress. During the war, the American government tried to present itself internationally as the champion of democracy and human rights. But the country’s system of racial segregation was at odds with this image. During the 1930s, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, said: “Nothing will be easier than to produce a bloody revolution in North America… no other country has so many social and racial tensions. We shall be able to play on many strings there.” Hitler hoped he might exploit these tensions to bring American fascists to power. He even sent Nazi agents to cooperate with the Ku Klux Klan. By the end of the 1930s, the U.S. Congress was investigating over 100 fascist groups in America. When Western leaders condemned the 1935 Nazi Nuremberg laws, the Nazi regime argued they were no different than the discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the United States. It wasn’t just America’s enemies who saw this weakness. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay was a leader of the Indian independence and women’s rights movements and a colleague of Mohandas Gandhi’s. She traveled across the American South in the 1940s, witnessing American racism first-hand when she chose to ride in the white-only section of a train. Gandhi remarked on this incident in a speech, saying, “I do not regard England, or for that matter America, as free countries. They are free after their own fashion, free to hold in bondage the coloured races of the earth.” After the war, other foreign officials and dignitaries visited the United States and returned to their homes in Africa and Asia with similar stories. Global connections Civil rights leaders in America were informed and influenced by anti-colonial leaders around the world. The Indian independence movement led by Gandhi strongly influential leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance was based on the concept of Ahimsa, a principle from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism that means “non-injury.” Gandhi and his followers used non-violent resistance and protests to end British colonialism in India after the Second World War. The American socialist and civil rights activist, Bayard Rustin, traveled to India in 1948 after Gandhi’s assassination. When he returned home, Rustin became King’s mentor and ally, teaching him about Gandhi’s methods. In 1959, King traveled to India himself. This trip helped solidify his belief that non-violent resistance was the weapon to bring down imperialism abroad and vanquish racism in America. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King lay a wreath at a memorial to Gandhi during a visit to India in 1959. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic. Certainly the fight against racism in America was entangled with anti-colonial struggles abroad. Entanglements are confusing, but this one can be seen much more clearly through the connections forged by women. Historian Keisha Blaine has highlighted the international connections and activism of black women in the twentieth century. Blaine tells the story of women like Amy Jacques Garvey and Mittie Maude Lena Gordon, who connected their activism in America to international struggles for racial and gender equality. Dr. Blain writes: Perhaps the most important aspect of black nationalist women’s political life was their interest in and commitment to black internationalism…These women understood that the struggle for black rights in the United States… could not be divorced from the global struggles for freedom in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and other parts of the globe. Using a variety of avenues, including journalism, print media, and overseas travel, black nationalist women articulated and disseminated global visions of freedom and sought to build transnational and transracial alliances with other people of color in order to secure civil and human rights. Women of color in the United States and in the colonized world were fighting, together, against two oppressions: one a struggle for independence against colonialism and racism, and the other a struggle against gender discrimination. Civil rights and decolonization in the Cold War The Cold War started, and so did decolonization. American leaders watched as their French and British allies lost colony after colony. Suddenly, the Cold War and decolonization had transformed civil rights into a national security issue. Many new nations in Africa and Asia emerged from decolonization and joined the United Nations. Both the Americans and Soviets wanted to groom these young countries as allies. American leaders were now trying to negotiate trade deals and alliances with formerly colonized people. In a single year, 1960, 17 different African nations each gained independence. Throughout the 1960s, dozens of African and Asian leaders petitioned to move the UN headquarters from New York to a country where they would be treated as equals. Many of those leaders cited America’s racial inequality as a reason to align instead with the Soviet Union, or to just stay neutral. Poster for the 1961 Non-Aligned Conference in Belgrade. Pictured are the leaders of the Non-Aligned movement, a group of newly independent nations who sought neutrality in the Cold War. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. The Soviets were happy to point out the hypocrisy of American democracy. They published propaganda films, literature, and posters denouncing racial inequality in America. In 1954, President Harry Truman had worked hard to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate schools because Soviet propaganda was so damaging to American interests abroad. His Secretary of State, Dean Acheson wrote, “the undeniable existence of racial discrimination gives unfriendly governments the most effective kind of ammunition for their propaganda warfare.” America’s ability to gain allies in the Cold War now rested in its ability to appeal to non-white leaders and nations. Civil Rights leaders in the U.S. and decolonization leaders around the world understood that their futures were interdependent, and they often collaborated. Both King and Rustin traveled to Ghana to meet with Kwame Nkrumah in the 1950s. King was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War, believing it was racist and imperialist. He also called for an end to nuclear weapons, observing: “What will be the ultimate value of having established social justice in a context where all people, Negro and White, are merely free to face destruction by Strontium-901^11start superscript, 1, end superscript or atomic war?” After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, King demanded that the government transfer funding from nuclear weapons to increase teachers’ salaries and build schools in poor communities. In 1960, a group of African American students in North Carolina formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). SNCC connected their fight for civil rights to decolonization abroad. They circulated copies of books by anti-colonial leaders. In 1964 and 1965, several members of SNCC attended meetings of the Organization of African Unity and started campaigns against Apartheid in South Africa. In 1967, SNCC declared itself a human rights organization devoted to ending “colonialism, racism, and economic exploitation wherever these conditions exist.” Conclusion The civil rights movement was actively linked with decolonization movements in Africa and Asia. And this influence flowed both ways. African and Asian leaders believed that the struggle for equality in the United States was part of their own struggle for international recognition and equality. Civil Rights leaders in America understood that the rise and continued independence of African and Asian nations abroad was fundamental to their struggles at home. As Civil Rights leaders traveled abroad and anti-colonial leaders traveled to the United States, they shared ideas and strategies. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in history from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a research associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What late twentieth-century trends, according to the author, led people to create the term “globalization”?What are some historical trends that accelerated globalization before the late twentieth century?What are some impacts of globalization in terms of migration and economics?What are some positive impacts of globalization, according to the author?What are some negative impacts of globalization, according to the author? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. Since this is the first reading assignment of the course, you may not connect it to much other than the knowledge you already have. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: What does globalization look like from your perspective? How does it affect your family and community? Do you think it has been a good thing for you? Why or why not?Globalization looks very differently studied through each of the three course frames. Pick one of the three course frames and describe the effects of globalization on your home town or neighborhood using only that frame narrative. How would your results have been different if you had chosen a different frame? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Introduction to Globalization An artwork depicts the planet earth, with a ring around the outside of it. Cars, buses, airplanes, and trucks are driving around on the ring as if they are on a road. By Bridgette Byrd O’Connor Globalization is now a buzzword in twenty-first-century politics. This interconnection and interdependency has equally long lists of pros and cons. What does globalization mean and when did it begin? What is globalization? In the later decades of the twentieth century, people found they needed a term to describe the dizzying amount of changes going on around them. The businesses that people worked for were buying and selling more goods in distant places. International organizations were increasingly bringing together representatives from many different communities. People were exchanging ideas rapidly as technology made travel and communications easier. These networks were not only getting bigger and covering more ground, but also their activity had become more intense. It was now possible to send and receive information or visit other places much more rapidly than ever before. Some observers even noted that people could have closer relationships with others living thousands of miles away, than with their own neighbors. How could all of these changes be described? If you guessed "a hot mess," you're close enough, but scholars and journalists eventually settled on globalization. A photograph shows a large auditorium, with rows of seats. There is green carpeting and several spotlights on the ceiling. All of the seats are filled, and all are facing a podium at the back of the auditorium. United Nations, a global organization devoted to fostering international peace, holding its General Assembly Meeting in New York, 2011. By Basil D. Soufi, CC BY-SA 3.0. A photograph shows a large auditorium, with rows of seats. There is green carpeting and several spotlights on the ceiling. All of the seats are filled, and all are facing a podium at the back of the auditorium. United Nations, a global organization devoted to fostering international peace, holding its General Assembly Meeting in New York, 2011. By Basil D. Soufi, CC BY-SA 3.0. A general term, globalization refers to how the world has become more connected economically, politically, socially, and culturally over time. In this general sense, its roots go back to the era of agrarian societies as empires expanded and trade networks grew. These connections really accelerated and encompassed the whole world after the Columbian Exchange. When people, plants, goods, diseases, and ideas were shared across all world zones, the lives of humans everywhere changed. In some regions this was mainly positive. For example, the introduction of more caloric food increased life expectancy. However, in other regions, the effects were more negative, such as slavery and exploitation of the land and resources for profit elsewhere—known as the dependency cycle. After the Industrial Revolution, the world became even more interconnected, and some scholars say that globalization really began in this period. In this sense, globalization is about people around the world becoming so connected that local life is shaped by what is happening in other parts of the world. This challenges our definition of community in some ways. Through the Industrial Revolution, local-global connections like this began to be established. Transportation and communication advancements led to an increase in travel and the sharing of ideas (collective learning). Imperialist nations exerted control over other areas of the world. The legacy of this colonization was, of course, negative in many ways when you consider slavery, destruction of traditional cultures, and the depletion of resources. But there were some effects most think of as positive, including the new technologies like railways and telegraph lines that connected more people and ideas around the world. The world wars globalized us even more. In fact, these major conflicts proved to the world that working together across global networks could be good and bad. There was global disaster with World War I, the even deadlier sequel, and the Great Depression. But we also saw global cooperation for good—like ending the Nazi regime. After World War II, many global organizations were formed to help to bring peace, stability, and economic prosperity to the world. The United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund are all global organizations you'll learn about later in this unit. Globalization’s effect on communities and economies Globalization has touched all aspects of human existence. In the modern era, voluntary migration as well as forced migration have resulted in a diverse human population in many parts of the world. America, which is often called a "melting pot", is a prime example of how the mass movement of people has shaped the modern world. Today's Americans come from all corners of the globe. But equally diverse populations can be found in parts of Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia, and many other places. And as people move, they bring with them their language, culture, food, and customs. These become interwoven within an existing society and create diversity, which should be celebrated. Similarly, the world economy today is so intertwined that if one nation struggles financially, the effects are felt in global markets. The 2008 global recession, for example, caused several banking crises in Europe and Asia, but really began with a "bubble" of bad loans in the United States. On an everyday basis, globalization is represented by multinational corporations that employ people around the world. These companies often make a single product from resources and labor in many different countries. A world map with highlighted global air and sea routes. The routes are shown as thin, highlighted strands, and there are so many of them that the world map is not visible behind the strands.Global air and sea routes highlighted on a world map. By Dominic Alves, CC BY 2.0. A world map with highlighted global air and sea routes. The routes are shown as thin, highlighted strands, and there are so many of them that the world map is not visible behind the strands. Global air and sea routes highlighted on a world map. By Dominic Alves, CC BY 2.0. The pros and cons of globalization This kind of intense globalization brings together people from around the world. But—and there are some buts—what are the side-effects? Technological innovations now let people around the world communicate and share ideas in real time, when messages sent across continents used to take months. But not everybody has the same access to computing or the Internet. Governments can work together to trade and solve problems. But that means some people are affected by laws or policies made in other countries. Beliefs are shared, which results in millions of people practicing the same faith in various parts of the world. But these shared beliefs also increase tensions with disagreements between people of different faiths, and even within faiths. Economies have become intertwined through international trade and aid. But, globalization has also led to an increase in inequality. In some nations the wealthy have become far richer while the poor have stayed stagnant economically. Some areas of the world have become extremely powerful and wealthy while others are still trying to overcome the negative effects of colonialism. In perhaps the biggest but of them all, the use of fossil fuels in industrialized nations has led to pollution that spreads around the world. As a result, one nation's pollution becomes the problem of other nations, as wind and water currents carry these toxic fumes and chemicals. Wealthy nations have also exported their waste to poorer nations including toxic waste and garbage from landfills. Interconnection and interdependency, therefore, can be a double-edged sword, as you will learn in this unit's lessons. However, with all of the twenty-first century's technology, medical innovations, and multinational corporations, it's impossible to think that we can ever retreat from the modern world to focus only on ourselves. As humans, we have the ability and consciousness to improve not only our own lives but also the lives of all humans as well as other species by working together. Globalization isn't reversible, so how can we eliminate some of the negatives as we move forward and continue to reap the rewards of working together and exchanging ideas? Author bio Bridgette Byrd O’Connor holds a DPhil in history from the University of Oxford and has taught Big History, World History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics for the past ten years at the high school level. In addition, she has been a freelance writer and editor for the Big History Project and the Crash Course World History and U.S. History curriculums. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: In what ways did the Nazis kill their victims?What ideas did the Nazis use to create hostility towards Jewish people?What are some early ways in which the Nazis restricted Jewish rights?Why were Jewish pregnant women, children, and mothers particularly targeted for gassing?According to the author, many enslaved Jews worked in private companies and were killed by people who knew them. Why is this point important? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to this question: The author argues that, “We need to be on the lookout for when we, too, become “used to” the casual oppression of others, when our everyday compassion for people different from us disappears.” Can you think of examples from your own life or from your society of people getting “used to” bad treatment of others? Are there ways in which we can act to avoid repeating this kind of atrocity? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Holocaust A close-up photograph of the forearms of a Holocaust survivor. There is a number tattooed on one of the person’s forearms. By Amy Elizabeth Robinson The Holocaust was the murder of millions of Jews and other persecuted groups across Nazi-occupied Europe in World War II. Discussing it is among the most difficult and most necessary topics in history. A spiral of fascism Despite the ideals of political liberalism and reformers, genocide was a feature of the early twentieth-century world. In particular, the mass killings of Herero and Nama people in German South West Africa and 1904 and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 were shocking news, but then quickly seemed to be accepted by many. By the 1930s, many parts of the world seemed to be caught in a spiral of empire-building, nationalism, and authoritarianism. At first promoted by just a few fascist hard-liners, these trends began to pull in "ordinary" people filled with hatred and fear. In this atmosphere, there was little space for ideas like human rights. In Europe during World War II, the spiral culminated in the extreme violence and genocide that we call the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the deliberate killing of millions of people by Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, the German military (the Wehrmacht), and local collaborators across Europe. The victims included 6 million Jews, somewhere between 250,000 and 1 million Roma (often mischaracterized as "gypsies"), 3 million Soviet prisoners-of-war (POWs), several million non-Jewish Eastern European civilians, and hundreds of thousands of other people targeted because of their race, political affiliation, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. The killing took place in a number of settings. Some were executed in eugenics-based1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript institutions in Hitler's "T4" program of mass murder through forced euthanasia, or medical killing. Many died of disease, starvation, or overwork in concentration camps, forced labor camps, or "ghettos." Ghettos were walled off sections of occupied cities where Jews were forced to live. Many were murdered in mass shootings, in eastern Europe especially. And about half of the Jewish people who perished in the Holocaust were massacred in "extermination camps": Chelmno, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec, Majdanek, and Auschwitz. Roma, POWs, and others were murdered there, too. A photo of a German bank note with a red stamp of the star of David in the left hand corner. This printed money was obsolete in Germany, but was reused in German Ghettos – notice the red stamp in the lower left. This gave Germans more control over Jews, because they could not easily accumulate money that would be valid outside the ghettos, public domain. A photo of a German bank note with a red stamp of the star of David in the left hand corner. This printed money was obsolete in Germany, but was reused in German Ghettos – notice the red stamp in the lower left. This gave Germans more control over Jews, because they could not easily accumulate money that would be valid outside the ghettos, public domain. It was violence and devastation on a scale that is almost unthinkable. Which is why thinking about it is vital. The difficult task of remembering what went wrong is how we keep it from happening again. In this article, we will see how the persecution of minority groups began in small steps, increased gradually, and involved more and more perpetrators until it reached the horrific level of a society-wide genocide. Origins and first steps before the Second World War In the lessons on fascism, you learned how scientific racism and ideas about national "purity" and "redemption" fed early twentieth-century fascist visions of the world. You also learned a lot about European imperialism. All of these elements came together in a powerful and terrible way in Hitler's wartime Germany. As WWII historian Robert Gellately writes, "it was in the context of creating a Germanic empire that the Nazi regime set about the truly monstrous undertaking of murdering all of Europe's Jews." A photograph shows three men in suits and top hats standing in front of a storefront. The window of the storefront has been entirely broken.On November 11, 1938, the day after the “night of broken glass,” it was clear how many Jewish-owned businesses had been vandalized. Yet the majority of non-Jewish citizens did not protest, public domain. A photograph shows three men in suits and top hats standing in front of a storefront. The window of the storefront has been entirely broken. On November 11, 1938, the day after the “night of broken glass,” it was clear how many Jewish-owned businesses had been vandalized. Yet the majority of non-Jewish citizens did not protest, public domain. There were only about half a million Jewish German citizens before the war. They were not the only people targeted by the Nazis. Other groups included anyone the Nazis considered "unfit"—politically, physically, sexually— for German life. But for Hitler, and eventually for the Nazi state he controlled, "solving the Jewish question" was the key to a racially "pure" nation. In the 1920s and 1930s, a generation of Germans was growing up learning about "racial science," a "Jewish-Bolshevik" threat, and "Aryan" victimhood. They learned this in schools and in groups like the League of German Girls and Hitler Youth. Young Germans became accustomed to the marginalization and humiliation of their Jewish neighbors. These ideas evolved into policy by 1933, when the Nazis required Jewish German citizens to register and identify themselves by wearing armbands or yellow stars. Then, in 1935, the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws, stripping Jews and Roma of German citizenship and prohibiting various kinds of relationship between "pure" Germans and others. For example, Jews could not employ servants with "German or related blood," and intimate relationships between the two groups were outlawed. Many non-Jewish Germans rioted on November 9, 1938, a date that has come to be known as Kristallnacht ("night of broken glass"). Eugenics added fuel to their existing hatred, and of course their own government was promoting hatred of Jewish people. They ransacked and destroyed Jewish synagogues, schools, businesses, hospitals, and homes across Germany. The chief of the Gestapo (Nazi police) ordered local police units not to interfere. Some 30,000 Jewish males were detained that night and sent to concentration camps that had been built to hold supposedly "antisocial" members of the Nazi state. Shortly after Kristallnacht, Jews lost more civil rights. They were barred from public transport, parks, and schools, and a Nazi campaign of "Aryanization" began. Jews lost the right to work in certain jobs. Their property and savings were confiscated. It became more and more clear that Jews were marked by the Nazi state for elimination—by imprisonment, emigration, expulsion, or worse. Intensification after 1939 Adolf Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, with the goal of creating Lebensraum (living space) for "Aryan" Germans. This marked another point in the intensification of the Holocaust. The German invasion of Poland from the west was followed by the Soviet invasion of Poland from the east. This dual attack unleashed extreme violence, including not just concentration camps but also mass shootings, starvation, and forced labor. A photograph of a large trench filled with bodies of those that were murdered in one of the concentration camps. Two men walk around the mass grave. Mass grave discovered during the liberation of Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp in April 1945. Public domain. A photograph of a large trench filled with bodies of those that were murdered in one of the concentration camps. Two men walk around the mass grave. Mass grave discovered during the liberation of Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp in April 1945. Public domain. Amid this violence "survival itself was a constant act of resistance" for Jewish people, say historians Dalia Ofer and Lenore Weitzman. Polish Jews were forced into crowded ghettos along major railroad lines, to make their eventual removal easier. Leaders debated whether Jews should be sent to a single section of Poland, to Palestine, or even to Madagascar. In many places Jews were shot en masse (all together), often by local non-Jews who were trained and encouraged by German paramilitary death squads, called Einsatzgruppen. Innumerable Jews, Roma, Soviet POWs, and local opponents were killed, or sent to ghettos or labor camps. Those who escaped hid in the forest, sometimes joining resistance forces. At the same time, the Nazis also began the "T4" program, which intentionally killed disabled teens, adults, and elderly people, who were considered "unfit" members of society. The “Final Solution” In July 1941, Adolf Hitler's Reichsmarshall Hermann Göring wrote a letter to Gestapo chief Reynard Heydrich requesting a "final solution" to the "Jewish question." Sometime in the fall or winter of 1941, Hitler authorized the intentional mass murder of Jews. The extermination camps, which would allow for the mass gassing and cremation of inmates, were already under construction in occupied Poland. In the spring of 1942, mass deportations of Jews from the ghettos of Poland to the extermination camps began. Deportations from across Nazi-occupied Europe soon followed. By the war's end, over 3 million people had been murdered at these industrial killing sites: about 320,000 at Chelmno, 1.7 million at Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, and 1.25 million at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Inmates arrived by train and were lined up for inspection, segregation, and selection for either hard labor or immediate gassing. They were harassed and humiliated during the entire process. Pregnant women, children, and mothers of young children were often selected for gassing because their survival would carry on the Jewish "race." Elderly, sick, injured, and disabled inmates were selected because they could not be exploited for the war effort. But Jews and others who survived hard labor were also eventually killed, because their strength and resilience were perceived as a danger to the Nazis. The logic was cruel, racist, and methodical, and went on for over two years. Who were the killers? The horror of the Holocaust was not limited to extermination camps, and the violence grew as Germany neared defeat. By 1944, Germany's desperate war efforts included widespread use of concentration camp inmates as slave labor in both state and privately-owned farms and factories. Economic historian Peter Hayes estimates that two- thirds of these 700,000 enslaved workers died within one year. At the same time, "vast numbers of Jews continued to be murdered" at killing sites near their homes in eastern occupied lands. About these murders, Omer Bartov writes the following: This kind of killing was very different from the industrial, relatively insulated, and impersonal mass murder in gas chambers, which distinguished the Holocaust from other genocides. Instead, it was intimate, face-to-face mass murder in towns where the victims, perpetrators, and bystanders often knew each other beforehand and where no one was entirely passive or could claim not to have seen, heard, or known about the killing. Bartov's words, and the fact that Jews and others died working for private companies, remind us that the Holocaust could not have happened without extensive civilian collaboration. Map shows the location of many of the large concentration camps. Most are fairly close to one another. Map showing the locations of the larger concentration camps, though there were others. Public domain. Map shows the location of many of the large concentration camps. Most are fairly close to one another. Map showing the locations of the larger concentration camps, though there were others. Public domain. Many historians now study the "ordinary" or "everyday" lives of people pulled into the violence of fascism and the Holocaust. In Germany, many people were genuinely drawn into the mood of youthful, fascist fervor, the sense of belonging and redemption. And by the 1940s Germans were steeped in propaganda and a racist, imperialist worldview. What was happening may have felt like just an escalation of something they had "gotten used to." Roma in Germany, for example, had long been labelled "habitual criminals," imprisoned, and discriminated against. Also, it wasn't just everyday Germans who were perpetrators in the Holocaust. In places like Croatia and Ukraine, a relatively small Nazi presence overlapped with local campaigns of racist, nationalist "ethnic cleansing." Gender offers a particularly interesting way to think about ordinary people's participation in fascism and the Holocaust. Both Mussolini and Hitler believed that women belonged in the home, producing children for the nation, and fascist imagery and ideology were drenched in militarist masculinity. "War is to men as maternity is to women," said Mussolini. As oppressive as that is, many women embraced fascist regimes because they offered, in the words of historian Victoria de Grazia, a "disconcerting experience of new opportunities and new repressions." They felt like they were volunteering to help a national cause, even though they were also losing fundamental liberties, including the ability to think and make decisions for themselves. Women and girls also made up half of the victims of the Holocaust. Gisela Bock, a historian of women in Nazi Germany, asks us to remember that in Nazism and the Holocaust, "race" became the most important marker of identity, the thing that marked a person for death or survival. Male and female Holocaust victims may have had slightly different experiences in the camps, but in the face of Nazism these were just "different horrors inside the same Hell." Furthermore, anyone who fell under the banner of what we now call LGBTQ, was targeted along with Jews, Roma, and other groups. We may always struggle with the immensity of the Holocaust, and especially with the fact that so many people participated in the killing, supported the killing, or failed to act or speak up when they saw that others were being harmed. Fascism and the Holocaust destroyed a basic sense of human connection and trust. In many ways, we are all still recovering. We need to be on the lookout for when we, too, become "used to" the casual oppression of others, when our everyday compassion for people different from us disappears. Without compassion, there is always a danger of something like the Holocaust happening again. A large, grey memorial stone shows an engraving of a poem attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller. It was a confession he made after the war, and was subsequently translated in a poetic style. There are different versions, but the text here reads: “They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist / Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew / Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist / Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant / Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”This memorial at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, MA, shows an engraving of a poem attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller. It was a confession he made after the war, and was subsequently translated in a poetic style. There are different versions, but the text here reads: “They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist / Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew / Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist / Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant / Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” By Yunner, CC BY-SA 3.0. A large, grey memorial stone shows an engraving of a poem attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller. It was a confession he made after the war, and was subsequently translated in a poetic style. There are different versions, but the text here reads: “They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist / Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew / Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist / Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant / Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” This memorial at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, MA, shows an engraving of a poem attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller. It was a confession he made after the war, and was subsequently translated in a poetic style. There are different versions, but the text here reads: “They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist / Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew / Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist / Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant / Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” By Yunner, CC BY-SA 3.0. [Notes] Author bio Amy Elizabeth Robinson holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University in the History of Britain and the British Empire. She is a freelance writer, editor, and has taught at Sonoma State University and Stanford University. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What did the United States have to do with the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia?What group of people did the Iraqi government, under Saddam Hussein, subject to a campaign of mass killing?What evidence does the author provide that propaganda played a role in the Rwandan genocide?What groups were involved in the Rwandan genocide?What evidence is there to suggest that religion played a role in the Bosnian genocide and continues to play a role in the ongoing Rohingya genocide? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Respond to the question posed by the author: “If the common language of the international community is indeed human rights, and genocide continues to happen, what does that say about human rights and the collective morality of our global community?”Why do you think the macro (big) and micro (small) levels of human interaction meet in a way that allows for thousands and even millions of people to murder each other? Is it a matter of big ideas or small ones? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Why Does Genocide Still Happen? A photograph of a stone memorial. It is built of several large stone blocks and reads “Never again” in several languages. By Bennett Sherry After the Holocaust, the world vowed to never again permit the crime of genocide. In the many decades since, genocide and mass violence have played out again, and again. Why? Never again Historian Samuel Moyn has called human rights the "moral lingua franca" of the international community. That is, all countries speak the language of human rights. As you've read, the international horror at Nazi atrocities during World War II is what many historians say led to the rise of human rights. As knowledge of the Holocaust spread, the world promised, "never again." In the decades since the Holocaust, our species has walked on the moon and created the internet, yet we've made no progress stopping genocide. The military in Myanmar is—at the time of this writing in 2019—committing genocide against the Rohingya people, a Muslim minority in that country. Since World War II, in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and many other places, people have committed genocide and mass violence against civilians. Why does genocide still happen? A better question might be: why is genocide not prevented? A photograph of a stone memorial. It is built of several large stone blocks and reads “Never again” in several languages.A memorial at Dachau Concentration Camp, with the words “Never Again” written in five languages. Forrest R. Whitesides, CC BY-SA 3.0. A memorial at Dachau Concentration Camp, with the words “Never Again” written in five languages. Forrest R. Whitesides, CC BY-SA 3.0. Genocide is organized murder. There are many conditions that leaders must exploit when they start killing civilians within the borders of their country. However, it is the indifference or collaboration of people in other countries that allows genocide to continue. Protection of national sovereignty has repeatedly trumped the lives of civilians. In most cases, the great powers of the world and the United Nations have either failed to act or acted to fail. Organized violence against groups of people is common to most places and time periods. You've read about the Armenian genocide in the early twentieth century. But in the second half of the twentieth century, the international community reaffirmed "the dignity and worth of the human person" in the United Nations Charter. The UN passed a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide in 1948. But it was not enforced until 50 years later, when the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda tried those responsible for the Rwandan genocide. Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Sudan, and Myanmar were all party to the convention while genocides occurred within their borders. Cambodia and Iraq: Genocide during the Cold War In 1975, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge military government killed 1.7 million people—21 percent of the country's population. Political Scientist Karl D. Jackson claims that the Cambodian genocide was "the greatest per capita loss of life in a single nation in the twentieth century." A map that the majority of states across the entire world participated in the genocide conventionStates participating in the Genocide Convention. By Allstar86, CC BY-SA 3.0. A map that the majority of states across the entire world participated in the genocide convention States participating in the Genocide Convention. By Allstar86, CC BY-SA 3.0. To understand why the Cambodian genocide started and why no one stopped it, you must understand the American war with Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military bombed Cambodia to kill North Vietnamese guerilla fighters hiding in the countryside, and they killed Cambodian civilians in the process. Many survivors joined the rebel group known as the Khmer Rouge, fighting against the U.S.-backed Cambodian government. Led by a former school teacher who called himself Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge seized control of Phnom Penh, Cambodia's capital, in 1975. They quickly sought to eliminate anyone deemed an enemy of the revolution, especially targeting ethnic and religious minorities. An airplane, flying above the clouds, drops a line of arrow-shaped bombs.An American B-52 bomber drops bombs on Cambodia in 1969. By the National Museum of the United States Air Force, public domain. An airplane, flying above the clouds, drops a line of arrow-shaped bombs. An American B-52 bomber drops bombs on Cambodia in 1969. By the National Museum of the United States Air Force, public domain. The UN knew of these atrocities early on. Why did no international force act to stop the killing? The five members of the UN Security Council—United States, Soviet Union, China, France, and Britain ¬– had the power to intervene. However, any member of the Security Council can veto an action by the UN. Both the Soviet Union and China refused to violate Cambodia's national sovereignty through UN intervention. These major powers had their own repressive regimes in Eastern Europe and Tibet. They feared a yes vote might set a precedent that could eventually hurt their interests in those regions. Beyond the inaction of the UN, the United States and China both actively supported the Khmer Rouge. When Vietnam—America's former enemy—invaded Cambodia in 1979 to put an end to the genocide, the United States provided aid to the Khmer Rouge. President Jimmy Carter said that the United States was choosing the "lesser evil." (Yes, just three paragraphs ago in 1975, the Khmer Rouge saw the U.S. as the enemy, but things change fast in war and politics.) Four thousand miles away from Cambodia and only a few years later, the Iraqi government, led by Saddam Hussein, launched a campaign to kill and subdue Iraq's Kurdish population. The Kurds are a large ethnic minority who live in the land where Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq border each other. In the 1980s, almost a quarter of Iraq's 18 million people were Kurds. The Iraqi government claimed its attacks were aimed at Kurdish terrorists they said were helping Iran attack Iraq. Hussein's military murdered and displaced tens of thousands of Kurdish men, women, and children. Their weapon of choice was poison gas. As in Cambodia, two members of the UN Security Council supported the state committing genocide. Both the Americans and Soviets provided financial and military aid to Iraq in its war against Iran. The Americans eventually worked with the UN to protect civilians, but that was only after 100,000 Iraqi Kurdish refugees crossed the border into Turkey, an American ally. A photograph shows a pair of green, toddler sized sandals.Exhumed Shoes of Child Victim of Anfal Genocide, 3rd International Conference on Mass Graves in Iraq, Erbil, Iraq. By Dr. Adam Jones, CC BY-SA 3.0. A photograph shows a pair of green, toddler sized sandals. Exhumed Shoes of Child Victim of Anfal Genocide, 3rd International Conference on Mass Graves in Iraq, Erbil, Iraq. By Dr. Adam Jones, CC BY-SA 3.0. Photograph of an artwork made up of the bones of Genocide victims. The artwork is in the shape of a map of Cambodia and is made up of mostly human skulls. A map of Cambodia made from the bones of victims of the Khmer Rouge, which hung in the Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide in Cambodia from 1979 to 2002. BY Donovan Govan, CC BY-SA 3.0. Photograph of an artwork made up of the bones of Genocide victims. The artwork is in the shape of a map of Cambodia and is made up of mostly human skulls. A map of Cambodia made from the bones of victims of the Khmer Rouge, which hung in the Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide in Cambodia from 1979 to 2002. BY Donovan Govan, CC BY-SA 3.0. Bosnia and Rwanda: American indifference after the Cold War The end of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of its empire in 1991 thrust Eastern Europe into a period of rapid change. The country of Yugoslavia erupted into violence in 1992, when Serbian nationalists exploited the country's religious and ethnic divisions. A vast field of gravestones.Gravestones at the Potočari genocide memorial near Srebrenica. By Michael Buker, CC BY-SA 3.0. A vast field of gravestones. Gravestones at the Potočari genocide memorial near Srebrenica. By Michael Buker, CC BY-SA 3.0. As Serbian generals shelled the Bosnian city of Srebrenica and murdered tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, the UN struggled to stop the violence. Yet the aggressors persisted, and when Western powers failed to provide the necessary money and troops for a UN peacekeeping force, ethnic violence escalated. To make matters worse, the new Russian government blocked any serious UN action in the Security Council. Inaction by the Americans and Europeans and obstruction by the Russians placed UN peacekeepers in danger. Serbian forces captured UN peacekeepers and used them as human shields. Decolonization was a major shift in the global balance of power. This shift increased tensions in many African nations. In the Central African country of Rwanda, a century of German and Belgian imperialism had divided people on ethnic lines1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. When the country gained its independence in 1962, tensions between the Hutu majority and Tutsi minority started a cycle of violence. In 1994, it culminated in an attempt by Hutu leaders to eliminate the Tutsi people from Rwanda. Behind a window, bordered with the words “NEVER AGAIN”, is a display of bones of the victims of Rwandan Genocide.Display of Skulls of Victims - Courtyard of Genocide Memorial Church - Karongi-Kibuye - Western Rwanda. By Dr. Adam Jones, CC BY-SA 3.0 Behind a window, bordered with the words “NEVER AGAIN”, is a display of bones of the victims of Rwandan Genocide. Display of Skulls of Victims - Courtyard of Genocide Memorial Church - Karongi-Kibuye - Western Rwanda. By Dr. Adam Jones, CC BY-SA 3.0 Hutu militias roamed the countryside killing Tutsi and other minorities, often with a machete in one hand and a radio in the other. The radios played racist propaganda intended to incite regular civilians to murder their neighbors. This radio station was one of the most effective tools of the genocide. And it is a glaring symbol of an international failure to act. When presented with evidence of genocide, politicians often say, "we didn't know." This is a lie. In one violent example after another, world leaders had detailed knowledge of atrocities like those in Rwanda. The UN had a peacekeeping force on the ground in 1994, and a UN general pleaded for more troops. But, as in Bosnia, the UN failed to find the political will and funding for a larger peacekeeping force. The American government actually tried to remove peacekeepers from Rwanda, and refused even to shut down the radio broadcasts, arguing that it would be too expensive and ineffective. One Pentagon official went so far as to say, "Radios don't kill people. People kill people." In 1994, the Rwandan government and Hutu militias murdered 800,000 people in 100 days. Darfur and Rakhine: Genocide in the twenty-first century The twenty-first century is proof that we have failed to learn how to stop genocide. The first genocide of this century started in a western region of Sudan called Darfur in 2003. Like Rwanda, Sudan's independence from Britain in 1956 worsened ethnic and religious divisions. Civil wars between government forces and rebels as well as between Christians and Muslims have resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Millions more children, women, and men have been sexually abused, forced into military service, or forced to leave their homes. Photograph shows protestors gathered behind metal gates, with signs attached that read “China: Extinguish the Flames of GENOCIDE in Darfur”. People are holding green balloons and signs that read “China: Listen to the Dalai Lama”.Protesters against China’s support of Sudan in San Francisco, 2008. Note the sign calling for a free Tibet alongside signs urging China to intervene in Darfur. By BrokenSphere, CC BY-SA 4.0. Photograph shows protestors gathered behind metal gates, with signs attached that read “China: Extinguish the Flames of GENOCIDE in Darfur”. People are holding green balloons and signs that read “China: Listen to the Dalai Lama”. Protesters against China’s support of Sudan in San Francisco, 2008. Note the sign calling for a free Tibet alongside signs urging China to intervene in Darfur. By BrokenSphere, CC BY-SA 4.0. Many nations, including the United States, at least pressured Sudan to end the killing, with the American government declaring a genocide in Darfur in 2004. But Russia and China have prevented serious action within the Security Council, refusing to violate Sudan's national sovereignty. And while American officials might condemn the violence with words, they have taken few concrete steps to stop the killing. A UN peacekeeping force was deployed to Darfur in 2007, nearly four years after the start of the genocide. This force however, is relatively small and lacks proper funding and support. In 2017, the military and Buddhist militias in Myanmar launched attacks against the country's Muslim Rohingya minority. Like Rwanda and Sudan, years of European imperialism fueled ethnic tensions. Since 2017, the military and Buddhist majority have carried out a campaign of extermination that has systematically and brutally abused, murdered, and displaced millions of people. The largest refugee camp in the world is a Rohingya camp in Bangladesh. In 2018, the United Nations declared these atrocities a genocide. In the same year, investigators working for the U.S. State Department agreed. The State Department, however, has refused to officially adopt that language, and a declaration isn't enough to stop bullets. International indifference has condemned hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to death, rape, torture, and homelessness. A photograph of a baby, seated on the ground on a narrow walking path between rows of thatched huts. Kutupalong Refugee Camp in Bangladesh. Public domain. A photograph of a baby, seated on the ground on a narrow walking path between rows of thatched huts. Kutupalong Refugee Camp in Bangladesh. Public domain. Conclusion: Again, and again Genocide happens because of choices people make. Within a society, hatred makes some people decide to murder people whom they see as different. Other people decide to sit by and allow it to happen, without acting to defend those being attacked. At the international level, as well, genocides continue to happen because the leaders of powerful states decide not to intervene, or not to let the United Nations intervene, to stop it. Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, argues that early action is critical to stop genocides. Since the Second World War and the Holocaust, major states such as the Soviet Union and China have often voted against intervention to stop genocide. However, Power believes that the United States was the country most capable of stopping genocide. Of all the countries in the world, it had the resources to take action outside the framework of the UN. In almost every case, it chose not to take action. Power argues that the American government's inaction was not a failure of the American system. The system, she says, with understandable cynicism, "is working" as it was intended. She makes the point that "no U.S. president has ever made genocide prevention a priority, and no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference." Again, and again, the powerful nations of the world have turned a blind eye to atrocities. Why? In each of the six cases above, a member of the UN Security Council restrained UN action. In several cases, powerful nations—states with the money, power, and influence to prevent genocide—actually gave aid to those killing civilians. Genocide still happens because the post-WWII international system was not only designed to protect human rights; it was also designed to ensure the power of the powerful. The veto power of the Security Council ensures that the UN cannot act meaningfully to stop genocide if even one of the five permanent members disagrees. Again, and again powerful countries decide to protect the concept of national sovereignty or to advance their own international agendas rather than stop the mass murder of civilians. The international system is not failing. It is operating exactly as it was designed. If the common language of the international community is indeed human rights, and genocide continues to happen, what does that say about human rights and the collective morality of our global community? [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt’s World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What’s the difference between a social revolution and political revolution, according to the author?Who was Porfirio Diaz and why did some think of him as a dictator?Why did Madero’s presidency fail?What role did the United States play in the Mexican Revolution?Who were the two sides of the revolution after 1913 and what each side want? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Which of the leaders in the Mexican Revolution do you think was the most effective leader, and why?First, write a list of the causes of the Mexican Revolution. Second, rank those causes from most important to least important. Finally, identify whether each cause was a “political” cause or a “social” cause. Based on your list, do you think the Mexican Revolution was more of a political revolution or more of a social revolution? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Mexican Revolution A photograph of a massive group of people marching. Many are holding weapons slung over their shoulders and tall hats to block the sun. By Alejandro Quintana (adapted by Bennett Sherry) The Mexican Revolution overthrew a dictator in just six months, but for the next ten years, Mexican revolutionaries fought each other to determine the outcome of the revolution. Two revolutions for the price of one Revolutions are messy. Historians try to categorize them. Politicians try to simplify their legacy for personal benefit. But revolutions don't fit into neat categories with obvious heroes and villains, and revolutionary legacies are more complicated than any politician would have you believe. One excellent example of this is the legacy of the Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910. Mexico's revolutionaries disagreed violently about their own revolution. As with the revolutions of the long nineteenth century, like the French, American, and Latin American Revolutions, it was a liberal political revolution that established a new constitution and democratic rule. But it was also a social revolution, like the communist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba that came later. The tension between these two ideas divided Mexico and led to a decade of violence. What's the difference between political and social revolutions? Liberal political revolutions seek to establish representative democracies based on personal liberty and political sovereignty. These revolutions want to change the political system. Social revolution, on the other hand, seeks to reshape the social order. Social revolutions change property rights and who controls a nation's wealth, while political revolutions change the political system but leave economic systems in place. Consider the difference between the American and Haitian revolutions. They both established a new political order, but only the Haitian revolution abolished slavery. Liberal democracy and the spark of revolution, 1910-1913 The Mexican Revolution began in 1910 with the eighth re-election of President Porfirio Diaz, who had ruled since 1876. Under Diaz, Mexico held elections for the president and legislature, but in reality, it was almost impossible to challenge Diaz. He used the military and police to repress dissent. Wealthy landowners and the middle class benefited from Diaz's economic system but wanted more political power. Black and white photograph of an army general in a heavily decorated uniform, including a feathered cap. President Porfirio Diaz, in 1910. He was a general in the Mexican army during the Second Franco-Mexican War, which helps explain all the medals. Public domain. Black and white photograph of an army general in a heavily decorated uniform, including a feathered cap. President Porfirio Diaz, in 1910. He was a general in the Mexican army during the Second Franco-Mexican War, which helps explain all the medals. Public domain. Diaz opened the country to foreign investors and entrepreneurs. They received incentives to purchase Mexico's mines, oil fields, land, and industries. Foreign investors enjoyed benefits and wages unavailable to Mexicans. By the start of the revolution, as much as a quarter of all land in Mexico was owned by American companies. In rural Mexico, wealthy landowners and foreign investors bought indigenous communal lands and forced villagers—who had no other options—to farm cash crops. The Diaz regime recruited gangs to suppress resistance among peasant and indigenous communities. Diaz based his authority on Mexico's economic prosperity. And for decades, his policies created a strong economy, even if they limited people's freedoms. However, in the first decade of the twentieth century, economic crises destabilized the country while the vast majority of Mexicans that remained poor were hit by droughts. Mexico was primed for the spark of revolution. Photograph of two pages of a newspaper celebrating the election of President Francisco Madero in 1911. Below an image of the president, rhyming text proclaims his virtues and describes Mexico City’s streets decorated with flowers and banners.A broadside celebrating the election of President Francisco Madero in 1911. Below an image of the president, rhyming text proclaims his virtues and describes Mexico City’s streets decorated with flowers and banners. By Antonio Vanegas Arroyo, from the Library of Congress. Photograph of two pages of a newspaper celebrating the election of President Francisco Madero in 1911. Below an image of the president, rhyming text proclaims his virtues and describes Mexico City’s streets decorated with flowers and banners. A broadside celebrating the election of President Francisco Madero in 1911. Below an image of the president, rhyming text proclaims his virtues and describes Mexico City’s streets decorated with flowers and banners. By Antonio Vanegas Arroyo, from the Library of Congress. When Diaz ran for reelection in 1910, Francisco Madero, a member of one of the wealthiest families in Mexico, denounced the regime and launched the Anti-Re-electionist Party1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. Diaz imprisoned Madero, but he escaped to the United States. From Texas, Madero issued a call for revolution in the name of land reform and political freedom. He set the date for November 20, 1910. Supporters of all different socioeconomic classes emerged all over Mexico, and Diaz was unable to contain them. By May 25, 1911, Diaz was on a boat, headed for exile in France. At the age of 38, Madero was elected president in a landslide. His administration promised a return to democracy and liberty. But political liberty was only part of what sparked the revolution. Ten tragic days, February 1913 Madero's main concern was liberal democratic reform, not social transformation. But he led a diverse coalition. In addition to more conservative elites, he was also joined by social revolutionaries like Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Villa and Zapata championed peasant and indigenous communities and believed in radically transforming Mexican society by redistributing land from wealthy landowners to peasants and indigenous groups. In the southern state of Morelos, Zapata waged a guerrilla war, and in the north, Villa led the División del Norte, the largest revolutionary army, on a series of successful—and often very brutal—military campaigns. Madero's presidency was brief. His policies were too radical for conservatives and too moderate for social revolutionaries. For example, he was too slow to follow through on land reform, and he maintained some elements of Diaz's rule. When he was challenged by regional rebellions, Madero used the federal army, which had supported Diaz, against his former allies. After fifteen months in office, Madero was overthrown. He was executed in February 1913 during the "Ten Tragic Days," the name historians give to the ten days from the beginning of the coup to Madero's death. Madero had been betrayed by general Victoriano Huerta, who seized power and declared himself military dictator with support from the United States. So close to the United States Speaking of the United States, you really can't tell the story of the Mexican Revolution without American interference, which was both governmental and commercial. Even Diaz once said: "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States." American investors owned so much property in Mexico, the U.S. government took great interest in what was happening there. They were especially concerned when revolutionaries started talking about reclaiming that property. The U.S. government intervened again and again during the revolution, often at the request of American investors. The U.S. government supported different factions and even invaded Mexico and occupied the city of Veracruz. While a revolution was playing out south of its border, the United States watched as World War I broke out across the Atlantic. Mexico remained neutral, providing oil to the British navy, but also maintaining a friendly relationship with Germany. In 1917, a telegram from the German government—known as the Zimmerman Telegram—proposed that Mexico join Germany if the United States declared war. The Mexican government had no interest, believing a war with its northern neighbor would be disastrous. But the British informed the U.S. government of the telegram, which helped push the U.S. into the war in Europe. Photo of four men, standing on a raised platform next to a tall stone wall, raising the American flag on a flagpole.American soldiers raising the U.S. flag over the Mexican city of Veracruz during the American occupation in 1914. From the Library of Congress. Photo of four men, standing on a raised platform next to a tall stone wall, raising the American flag on a flagpole. American soldiers raising the U.S. flag over the Mexican city of Veracruz during the American occupation in 1914. From the Library of Congress. The fight to define the revolution, 1913-1920 Madero's policies had certainly displeased revolutionaries, but they were far more united against Huerta. Pancho Villa and Zapata allied with liberals and defeated Huerta in July 1914. But soon after their victory, the revolutionaries again split into opposed camps. The Conventionistas—including Pancho Villa and Zapata—sought big economic and social reforms. The Constitutionalistas—led by Venustiano Carranza and Álvaro Obregón—wanted to establish a liberal democracy, but were less willing to return land to peasant and indigenous villages. The two sides were unable to resolve their differences, and the civil war that followed was the most violent period of the revolution. From 1915 to 1917, one million civilians and soldiers died in the fighting. The Constitutionalistas emerged victorious. They passed a constitution and elected Carranza president. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 enshrined legal and political rights, but it also called for economic rights and social justice. The document called for land reform, nationalization of resources, and workers' rights. In practice, however, the post-revolutionary government ignored many of these promises. Three men sit in chairs next to one another. Pancho Villa is seated in the center, wearing an army uniform, and Emiliano Zapata wears a formal jacket and holds a large sombrero on his knee. Several others stand crowded behind and around him. Pancho Villa (center) and Emiliano Zapata (with the large sombrero) in 1914. Public domain. Three men sit in chairs next to one another. Pancho Villa is seated in the center, wearing an army uniform, and Emiliano Zapata wears a formal jacket and holds a large sombrero on his knee. Several others stand crowded behind and around him. Pancho Villa (center) and Emiliano Zapata (with the large sombrero) in 1914. Public domain. Consolidating the revolution, 1920-1940 Many historians mark the election of President Álvaro Obregón in 1920 as the end of the Mexican Revolution. Zapata was assassinated in 1919 on the orders of Carranza. Carranza was killed soon after. Pancho Villa retired in 1920 and was assassinated three years later. Whether it ended in 1917 or 1920, violence continued after the revolution. Every presidential election in the 1920s produced some sort of uprising. President Plutarco Calles succeeded Obregón and founded the National Revolutionary Party, which won every presidential election from 1928 to 2000. It was Lázaro Cárdenas, who became Mexico's forty-fourth president in 1934, who finally instituted some of the socioeconomic promises of the 1917 constitution. He enacted a broad set of social and economic reforms that transformed Mexican society. He strengthened labor unions, nationalized Mexico's oil industry, and redistributed over 70,000 square miles of land. That's roughly the size of Syria. Revolutionary legacy Over one million people were killed in the revolution, and hundreds of thousands fled to the United States. All this violence and upheaval transformed Mexico, but a lot remained the same. The revolution ended the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz, and since 1928, Mexican presidents have not been allowed to run for a second term. The 1917 constitution enshrined political and socioeconomic rights and limited the power of the Catholic church. Eventually, the revolution brought universal education, labor rights, land reform, and the nationalization of some industries. But change was limited, and not everyone benefited equally. Thousands of women joined or were forced to join revolutionary armies. Women gained some new rights after 1917, but their important role in the revolution was mostly ignored. Women did not win the right to vote until 1953. Wealthy landowners continued to control the economy. The countryside, which had suffered the most in the fighting, benefited the least. Despite the excitement for land reform, most peasants continued to experience poverty. Modern-day photograph of a dome-shaped monument with a flag in front of it. The Monumento a la Revolución in Mexico City. By Haakon S. Krohn, CC BY-SA 3.0. Modern-day photograph of a dome-shaped monument with a flag in front of it. The Monumento a la Revolución in Mexico City. By Haakon S. Krohn, CC BY-SA 3.0. Just look at the Monumento a la Revolución, a perfect symbol for the complex legacy of the Mexican Revolution. Intended as a federal legislative building, its foundations were laid by Porfirio Diaz before the 1910 revolution. President Madero continued its construction, but now as a monument to democracy. The chaos of the revolution delayed its completion until the 1930s. The heroes of the revolution—Madero, Carranza, Villa, Calles, and Cárdenas—are all buried there. In life, these men disagreed, often violently, about the meaning of the Mexican Revolution. In death, the bitter rivals symbolize that perhaps the legacy of the Mexican Revolution is more than the sum of its parts. [Notes] Author bios Alejandro Quintana is an associate professor of History at St. John’s University in New York City. His research and teaching focus on state formation, nation-building, nationalism, revolutions, and social movements, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What were the main alliances in the war?What does the author assert were some of the European causes of the First World War?What does the author argue were some global motivations for the war?Where were most of the battles outside of Europe fought?What are the main consequences of the war that this article mentions? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Lots of people from lots of places died in World War I, which certainly had huge consequences for communities everywhere. Lots of goods and weapons had to be made for the war, which certainly transformed global production and distribution. But what about networks – can you think of any ways that the war changed global networks? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The First World War as a Global War Black and white photograph of several men in army uniforms, carrying a man on a stretcher. By Trevor Getz How does a regular war become a world war? It’s a tough question to answer, but asking who fought, what they fought for, and where they fought should give you a fighting chance. What makes a war a “world” war? The First World War began in a pretty small place. I don't just mean Bosnia, this little province of the Austro- Hungarian Empire in the Balkan Peninsula, where an assassination occurred. No, I mean Europe, a continent so small that it would take three Europes to reach the size of Africa, and four to be as vast as Asia. The initial fight among European states was indeed a small place for the start of a war so big. But from the very beginning of the conflict, in August 1914, the First World War was much bigger than just a European conflict. In the years that followed, it grew even larger. By 1918, most of the world's population was officially at war, and even the neutral countries were frequently involved in one way or the other. Let's explore the global dimensions with three questions: Who fought? Why did they fight? Where did they fight? Who fought? Empire vs. empire In August 1914, two large alliances faced off against each other. On one side were Germany and Austro-Hungary, soon joined by the Ottoman Empire. These were the Central Powers. On the other side were the Entente powers: France, Russia, and a group of smaller allies including Portugal, Belgium, and Serbia. They were soon joined by Italy and then Britain. Technically, all of these were European states. But since many of the territories controlled by these states were not in Europe, it certainly didn't look that way. Their empires covered large portions of the globe and huge populations. The British Empire was the largest in the world. It ruled over vast regions in North America (Canada), the Caribbean, the entire landmass of Australia, and much of South Asia and Africa. The British Empire's population in 1914 stood at 412 million people, but over 80% of those people were actually Indian—and in India. Another 36 million subjects lived in other British colonies. There were only 44 million British citizens in its own massive empire. France also had a large overseas empire, mostly in the Caribbean, the Pacific Ocean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. The Ottoman Empire stretched into Arabia. Italy, Portugal, and Belgium all had African colonies. Russia, in its vastness, extended all the way from the eastern edge of Europe to the Pacific Coast of Asia, although much of this territory had very few inhabitants. The war was already global in 1914 due to the reach of the empires. But then, other states around the world joined the Entente powers: Japan in Asia, the United States in North America, and Brazil in South America, to name an important few. The biggest neutral country was China, but even they provided aid and laborers to the Entente. And in August 1917, the Chinese government officially declared war on the Central Powers. By late 1917, most of the world was at war. Asking "who fought?" is one thing when you talk about states, alliances, and empires. But let's look at the actual troops who marched into battle. At the beginning of the war, most of the soldiers were Europeans. But soon, the European empires began to call upon colonial soldiers to help them. The British Empire enlisted more than 1.2 million Indian soldiers, accounting for more than a quarter of England's total troops. Other colonies also contributed. Nigeria deployed 17,000 soldiers and 37,000 laborers. From Canada, 332,000 soldiers came to fight, and another 444,000 from New Zealand and Australia. France relied on 335,000 African troops and more than 50,000 armed men from Vietnam and neighboring regions, plus lots of laborers. Russia drew heavily on troops from Siberia and Central Asia. By 1916, Entente soldiers were joined in the trenches by more than 120,000 laborers from neutral China and, eventually, by almost 2,000,000 American soldiers. The victory of the Entente was truly a global effort. A photograph of several men marching, carrying guns on their shoulders. They are walking on a tree lined road. African soldiers of the French Empire marching to battle, 1917. By Michel Royon, CC BY-SA 4.0. A photograph of several men marching, carrying guns on their shoulders. They are walking on a tree lined road. African soldiers of the French Empire marching to battle, 1917. By Michel Royon, CC BY-SA 4.0. Why did they fight? Homegrown hostilities, global ambitions The fighting was certainly global, but many of the causes of the First World War had to do with problems within Europe. Specifically, there were tensions in the Balkan Peninsula, as well as ongoing disputes over who controlled the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine between France and Germany. But other motivations were more global. Britain and France both hoped to gain Ottoman territories along the Mediterranean Sea. Russia, too, hoped to gain control of the Dardanelles Strait from the Ottomans so they could gain access to the Mediterranean. Japan aspired to control German colonies in the Pacific Ocean. Later, when Russia left the side of the Entente powers, troops from Britain, France, Japan, and the United States campaigned against the Russians as well. Perhaps most importantly, Britain was watching the growing German Navy the way a grizzly bear might watch you coming for her cubs. Britain was wealthy only because of its control over a vast empire and its trade, and it was Britain's large navy that protected their control over this trade. The fear that a rival navy might grow large enough to cut Britain off from its colonies was more than enough reason to fight Germany. In other words, the various motives of the conflict were based both on European issues as well as global ambitions. Where did they fight? Global violence over land and sea Most of the combat in the First World War took place in Europe, along three fronts: 1) the Italian border with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Balkans in the south, 2) the Eastern Front along the Russian border in the east, and 3) the Western Front in France and Belgium. But a lot of fighting took place outside of Europe. There were naval engagements all over the world's waters. Many of these were small-scale, and some were fought in seas as far from Europe as East Africa and in Hawaii. A group of men, in uniform, standing in a grassy field behind a line of four cannons. German “askaris”, African soldiers who fought successfully in German East Africa throughout the First World War. By Walther Dobbertin, CC BY-SA 3.0. A group of men, in uniform, standing in a grassy field behind a line of four cannons. German “askaris”, African soldiers who fought successfully in German East Africa throughout the First World War. By Walther Dobbertin, CC BY-SA 3.0. Conclusion The war ended with the surrender of the Central Powers in 1918 and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The end of the conflict had major implications for Europe. In particular, it tore the Austro-Hungarian Empire into many smaller states and, by punishing Germany badly, the Treaty of Versailles helped set the stage for the Second World War. Outside of Europe as well, the resolution of the war had vast implications. The destruction of the Ottoman Empire made a particularly big mess, and deserves special mention here. Britain needed a lot of help to bring down this massive power. They gathered allies by making promises about what would happen after the Ottoman Empire was defeated. These included promises to both the Jewish and Arab communities about who would control the territory of Palestine. But after the war, Britain took control of Palestine and neighboring territories for itself. Unkept promises, and the lack of a resolution, would pave the way for decades of distrust and warfare which continue to the present day. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and World History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What have been the general trends in global population over the long span of human history?What has been the trend in the past two hundred years in terms of the percentage of people living in cities?How has industrialization changed atmospheric CO2 levels, and why does that matter?What have been some health effects of fossil fuel use? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. Since this is the first reading assignment of the course, you may not connect it to much other than the knowledge you already have. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The author ends this article by arguing that humanity must cooperate to reduce our impact on the global environment. Do you agree? Why or why not?Given the environmental impact of the Industrial Revolution, do you think this was overall a positive transformation in production and distribution, or negative? Provide evidence for your position. Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the Present A photograph of a hazy, dark orange sky over an industrial city. Tall smokestacks emit large billows of smoke. By Bridgette Byrd O’Connor Our changing climate is one of the most talked-about current events—for good reason. It’s a story we are in the middle of, that began with industrialization, and ends when… well now that’s a good question. Introduction It can be hard to grasp the impacts of climate change. Data sets, complex vocabulary, and confusing political views further complicate our understanding of this long-term, global concern. So how can we make sense of the overwhelming amount of information that's out there? One way is to look at how environmental changes since 1880 have been intertwined with industrialization and enormous increases in the global population. The Industrial Revolution changed how we work, where we live, and how many of us there are. Innovations in machinery that propelled industry and improved agriculture produced enough food for a population explosion. Labor underwent massive changes, as more people moved to cities for factory jobs. Human migration changed communities and created new cultural and economic networks of exchange. These new networks connected and further globalized the world. By 1880, industrialization had spread throughout the world. It benefitted some a lot more than others. European nations and the U.S. gained the most. These wealthy, industrialized nations extracted resources from Africa, Asia, and Latin America to fuel their own growth. By the end of the nineteenth century, this uneven system of exchange affected everyone on Earth one way or another. Population explosion We know industrial acceleration and globalization caused population growth. In 1803 the global population reached 1 billion for the first time. But that took thousands of years. Then, industrialization took off. And in just 150 years, from 1803 to 1950, the global population more than doubled to reach 2.5 billion. Then, by 1987, it had doubled again and we were at 5 billion! Detailed, illustrated map of Manhattan in 1874. Most buildings are short, with few high rises, and the island is surrounded by ships.Manhattan, New York City, 1874. By George Schlegel, public domain. Manhattan, New York City, 2014. By Anthony Quintano, CC BY 2.0. Detailed, illustrated map of Manhattan in 1874. Most buildings are short, with few high rises, and the island is surrounded by ships. Manhattan, New York City, 1874. By George Schlegel, public domain. Manhattan, New York City, 2014. By Anthony Quintano, CC BY 2.0. To put that in perspective, it took almost seven centuries (900 C.E. to 1500 C.E) for the population to increase from a quarter billion to half a billion. But it took only two centuries for the world population to jump from one billion to a staggering 7,600,000,000 today. And much of that growth can be linked to the effects of industrialization, namely food production. Table 1: Total Population by Region (in millions, rounded)1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript Region1820190019502000North America1282173313South and Central America2466169526Africa89141229818Europe219421549727Asia74593914003730Oceana151331World1090165425336145 However, there were also periods when the population fell dramatically in a short period of time. These drops were caused by disasters like the two world wars and global epidemics like the influenza outbreak of 1914. Industrialization played a part as well. Technological breakthroughs and mass production of weapons made war deadlier, and improved transportation helped deadly germs to spread faster and farther. However, innovations in medicine, transportation, and communication—all products of industrialization—let the population recover faster than it ever had in the past. Increased urbanization After 1800, the areas where population increased the most were cities. People were migrating to cities for work long before industrialization. But the urban growth rate really increased after industrialization spread outside of Europe beginning around 1800. For example, in 1800 no region in the world had more than 13 percent of their population living in cities. By 2000, these numbers skyrocketed, as the table below shows. In fact, in 2008, for the first time in human history, the percentage of people living in urban areas was more than those living in rural areas. And by 2017, there were 4.13 billion people living in cities versus 3.4 billion in rural areas. The urbanization trend isn't showing any signs of slowing down. Urbanization may have been good for employment, but it was generally bad for your health. As more people lived in close proximity, disease and pollution increased accordingly. However, over time, innovations in medicine and sanitation took care of some of these problems. Advances in medicine also increased life expectancy. In the late nineteenth century, people only lived an average of 30 years! By the early twenty-first century, the global average was up to 71 years. If a 41-year increase in just over a century sounds normal, compare that with the previous hundred years. Life expectancy went from 29 years in 1770 to the ripe old age of 30 for folks in 1870. However, these numbers did vary around the world. Increases in life expectancy have been more pronounced in areas that industrialized first. Developing economies, such as those in Africa and Southeast Asia, have seen more modest climbs. Table 2: City Life: Percentage of Urban Population by Region Region1800190019502000North America6.6%33%56%77.6%Central and South America8.6%24.3%39.6%72%Africa3%6%16.5%38.7%Europe (not including Russia)12.5%30%48%67.5%West and Central Asia3.4%13.6%32.8%61.6%South and East Asia4.8%11.6%19.8%46.8%Oceania8%35%72%82%World7%16%29%47% Environmental changes Analyzing rising population and life expectancy may make it seem as though everything got better over this period of time. Unfortunately, that's not entirely the case. Yes, we have seen tremendous improvements in life expectancy and technological innovations, but industrialization has its downfalls. The industrial world depends on fossil fuels, and burning them has hurt the environment. For 400,000 years, the carbon dioxide level never exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm). Even in the first two centuries of industrialization, CO2 levels stayed below this threshold. Then as a result of increasing industrialization after World War II, CO2 levels exceeded 300 ppm for the first time in human history, and continued to rise. Current levels of CO2 are now at 415 ppm. So why does this matter and how does this relate to population growth? High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global temperatures to rise. We are already 1 degree Celsius above what's normal. The rise in CO2 and global temperatures cause ice at the poles to melt, making sea levels rise. Human communities living near coastal areas are endangered by rising sea levels, and so are animal habitats. Considering nearly half of the human population currently lives within 100 miles of a major body of water, these rising waters will be a major challenge of the future. But it is not just species on land that are threatened. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report in 2019 detailing CO2 increases in Earth's oceans. "The global ocean absorbed 34 billion metric tons of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels from 1994 to 2008—a fourfold increase of 2.6 billion metric tons per year when compared to the period starting...1800 to 1994" (NOAA). These increases make the oceans more acidic, endangering marine life. Shellfish, for example have more difficulty producing their calcium carbonate protection (shell) because of the water's increased acidity. Luckily, the oceans absorb some of the CO2 that would otherwise lead to ever-increasing temperatures. However, an important question is whether the oceans can sustain these increases in CO2 absorption. Carbon dioxide levels and other pollutants have been increasing since the early nineteenth century. Burning coal to power factories, trains, and ships bathed whole cities in soot with noxious air—a grim image we often associate with the early decades of industrialization. As new engines were developed that relied on oil and gas, more pollutants were then released into the atmosphere and waterways. And as the global population doubled twice in the twentieth century, more resources, more production, and more fuel was needed. More people required electricity, usually generated from the burning of coal. More people required transportation, which led to more oil and gas for cars, buses, trains, and planes. More, more, more. Graph shows the median temperature increasing, steadily, from 1880 through 2020.Global temperature increases historical from 1880 and projected to 2020. NASA, public domain. Graph shows the median temperature increasing, steadily, from 1880 through 2020. Global temperature increases historical from 1880 and projected to 2020. NASA, public domain. By the mid-twentieth century, people were feeling the effects of fossil fuel use. In 1948 and 1952, Donora, Pennsylvania and London, England had drastic episodes of toxic air pollution that caused more than 4,000 deaths. In the 1960s, scientists and governments began to call for environmental legislation to help alleviate some of the more dangerous side-effects of industrialization. Many of these actions helped reduce pollution. For example, volatile (dangerous) organic compounds that cause smog decreased by a factor of 50 in Los Angeles from 1960 to 2010, even though the number of gas-powered vehicles went up. However, we still have much more to do. Carbon dioxide levels plateaued (stopped rising) in the early twenty-first century but are now rising again. Climate scientists around the world warn that if we do not act quickly to reduce emissions, both the Earth and humanity may be doomed. So now what? Collectively, humanity must cooperate. If we lower CO2 levels and curb plastic use, we can, with effort and collaboration, replace these fuels with renewable energy resources like solar, wind, and water power. But what can we do as individuals to help our community and our planet? A photograph of a group of young girls protesting at a climate strike, holding up handmade signs. One sign reads “SOS”, the ‘O’ replaced by a melting planet Earth. In September of 2019, climate activists organized a worldwide “climate strike” to demand world leaders address climate change with more urgency. By Ckohtala, CC BY-SA 2.0. A photograph of a group of young girls protesting at a climate strike, holding up handmade signs. One sign reads “SOS”, the ‘O’ replaced by a melting planet Earth. In September of 2019, climate activists organized a worldwide “climate strike” to demand world leaders address climate change with more urgency. By Ckohtala, CC BY-SA 2.0. Jane Goodall, a noted primatologist and environmental activist, was recently asked what we can do today to help tomorrow. She said, "Everyday you live you make some impact. So start thinking about the consequences of the little choices you make. What do you buy? Where did it come from? Did it harm the environment?" If the majority of Earth's 7.6 billion population took the time to think about these choices on a daily basis then collectively, we could dramatically change the way we interact with the environment. [Notes] Author bio Bridgette Byrd O’Connor holds a DPhil in history from the University of Oxford and has taught Big History, World History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics for the past ten years at the high school level. In addition, she has been a freelance writer and editor for the Big History Project and the Crash Course World History and U.S. History curriculums. [Sources and attributions]

Conflicts Between Countries since 1945 By Trevor Getz Despite the suffering caused by the world wars, conflict between states still happens today. Why? And what can we do about it? War and history Wars can seem to dominate history. They define generations and mark changes in government, become the stuff of national narratives and myths. They are also devastating and horrible to experience. People who went through the First World War were so traumatized that they optimistically called it “the war to end all wars.” Clearly, it wasn’t. In fact, there hasn’t been a year without war since the end of the Second World War, and some periods – including the years since 2000 – have seen 100,000 people or more killed directly in wars every year. A chart showing the number of deaths directly from war, since the end of the Second World War in 1945. From Our World in Data. Why do wars happen? “So why do wars exist?”, you might well ask. “Can’t we prevent them?” Well, we can begin to answer these questions by asking whether war is somehow innate for humans—that is, something natural within us. Scholars who work in the field known as social identity theory argue that humans innately like belonging to groups. Members of one group are happy to treat the members of another group with prejudice, even if there is no rational basis for their behavior. If you have any doubt about that, think about the violence that happens between fans in large sporting events, even though the fans of different teams who play the same sport usually have a lot in common. There is an ongoing discussion about why we evolved to behave this way, but there is compelling evidence that humans naturally have these emotional prejudices and allegiances. Still, wars demand more specific explanations as well. Wars may ignite for economic reasons—to raise the standard of living of one nation’s citizens by forcibly taking the resources of another nation, or forcing them to adopt policies your country favors. Wars are also fought because of disagreements over key ideas, like religion. Their motives often have a long history behind them, such as revenge or the retaking territory once lost. Domestic politics can also play a big role. Rulers find that identifying an outside enemy, and making war on them, conveniently distracts people from troubles like a bad economy or corruption within the country. Some scholars argue that we should see wars as a failure of normal situations, instead of something entirely natural. They argue that normally, humans are able to bargain with each other in some way. This is what defines diplomacy: helping states talk to each other about their needs and figure out situations that will benefit everyone. When bargaining fails, or breaks down, one result can be war. This theory assumes that people are normally rational, and so they must prefer to bargain, and that war only results when the bargaining fails. But remember that social identity theorists would generally disagree, as they see violence, including war, as part of our nature. Let’s look at a couple of late-twentieth century conflicts to try to understand why they happened. India–Pakistan India and Pakistan are two states that became independent together in 1947 – 1948. That’s because they were both part of the same British colony. But when anti-colonial activists and shifts in public opinion drove the British out, that colony broke into several parts. The bordering regions of India and Pakistan were different in a few ways, but most importantly Pakistan was majority-Muslim and India was majority-Hindu. As a result, their populations had religious differences. In addition, they disagreed over who was to control a region lying on their border, with a very diverse population, called Kashmir. Finally, there was quite a bit of violence when independence came to the two countries, often between Muslims and Hindus who lived near each other, and this led to a cycle of revenge attacks in 1947 and 1948. Map of India and Pakistan upon independence, showing the areas of conflict, including Kashmir. By RaviC, CC BY-SA 4.0. The conflict between the two states decreased a bit in the 1950s, but broke out again in 1965. Questions about who controlled Kashmir, and rising feelings of nationalism in both countries contributed to this war. But another issue was a disagreement over who controlled an important resource—the water coming from mountains along the border. Conflicts broke out again in 1971 and 1999. Many of the issues remained the same, especially the question of who should control Kashmir. Cold War tensions ramped up the pressure for a while, with US and Chinese support for Pakistan up against Soviet support for India. The two countries managed to avoid full-scale war, but in the early twenty-first century both developed nuclear weapons, making the potential for total war even more dangerous. Nationalist sentiment has continued to grow on both sides of the border, as has the persecution of religious minorities in each country. That makes conflict even more likely in the future. Iran–Iraq Two other countries that have frequently been in conflict are neighbors Iran and Iraq. Both had diverse populations in the twentieth century, but Iran’s is mostly Shi’ite Muslims, while the Sunni Muslims governed Iraq for most of the twentieth century. Even in Iraq, though, the majority of its population are also Shi’ites. The biggest cause of tension between these two countries in the late twentieth century, however, has been control over land and resources. Both Iran and Iraq have large deposits of oil, but both rely on the same river, the Shatt al-Arab, to get their oil out into the ocean and to markets. The two countries disagreed over who owned this region, and that contributed to a major conflict known as the Iran–Iraq War that was fought over eight years, between 1980 and 1988. Iraq also wanted control of a region where oil was produced. They attacked Iran during a period when it was just getting a new government. This Iranian government was a religious theocracy—rule by extremist religious figures—and it didn’t have a lot of support around the world. However, it was able to stir up nationalist feelings among the Iranian republic, and so they managed to avoid defeat and to prolong the war for eight years. A map of the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988, showing oil fields that were one of the causes of the dispute. At the bottom of the map is the Shatt al-Arab waterway that both sides wanted to allow their oil tankers to get to the ocean and to markets. Notice how little territory ever actually changed hands, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths. By Maximilian Dorrbecker, CC BY-SA 2.5. During the years of war, both sides made strong use of propaganda to get people in their country to hate or dislike the populations and governments of the other country. Over half a million soldiers died in the conflict. Many civilians were also killed, including those suspected of disloyalty merely because they belonged to ethnic or religious minorities. Despite a new government in Iraq today, tensions between the two countries—which share a 1,000-mile border—remain high. China–Taiwan Tensions also remain high between Taiwan, which is officially called the Republic of China (ROC), and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which is the communist state covering mainland China. Taiwan had been a Chinese province, but became effectively independent when the Communist Party of China won a civil war in 1949. The Guomindang (Kuomintang), or Nationalist Party, retreated to Taiwan. The communist government of the People’s Republic of China still claims Taiwan today. Taiwan and the east coast of China, with the Taiwan Strait in between. Map produced by the US Central Intelligence Agency, and held by the Perry-Castañeda Library. Public domain. The conflict between China and Taiwan is not a result of religious difference. We could say that it has some of its roots in differences of ideas. Taiwan’s economic and political philosophy has mainly been in favor of capitalism and democracy, at least since the 1980s, while the People’s Republic of China has mainly followed communist economic policies and is very much a one party state. We could also say this is a territorial dispute, since China claims Taiwan to be part of its own territory, rather than an independent state. Since the end of the civil war in 1949, this conflict has never re-emerged as outright war. In fact, such a war has historically been difficult to conceive. Taiwan is an island, and it is largely protected by the navy of its ally, the United States, which until recently was many times stronger than the navy of the People’s Republic of China. However, there have been periods of limited military activity, like the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis in which their forces clashed over smaller neighboring islands that each claim to control. Can wars be avoided? All of these wars are conflicts between different countries. We have not even mentioned internal conflicts such as civil wars, or wars between governments and insurgent groups. Unfortunately, there will probably be more wars in the future, especially as some natural resources become scarcer. It is depressing to think that wars may be partly a result of human nature, or that we have not learned to bargain well enough to avoid breakdowns and war. But that doesn’t mean we should give up. Wars, and the damage they cause, will decrease when humans develop other strategies for shaping how we feel about each other, and how we bargain. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How, according to the authors, did the Cold War begin even before the Second World War ended?What were some regional confrontations that were also Cold War battles between 1945 and 1990?What were some colonies that gained independence before 1960?Why was 1960 called “the year of Africa”?What are two ways in which the Cold War and decolonization were entangled?On what basis do some historians argue that both superpowers were building empires of their own? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The author argues that we see different things when we look at this era from different perspectives. Focusing on individual struggles for independence tells a very different story than does highlighting how all these individual struggles are part of a global Cold War confrontation. What are the advantages of looking at each struggle independently? What are some advantages of looking at the bigger pattern? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Connecting Decolonization and the Cold War A photo of a protest scene. A large crowd is gathered, many with their mouths open, perhaps indicating chanting. In the foreground of the picture, two women stand together, holding up a flag, their other arms raised over their heads. By Trevor Getz The Cold War and decolonization were two trends that happened in parallel. Was it just by chance that two enormous global episodes began as the Second World War ended? Or did these two trends contribute to each other? Timelines of the Cold War and the end of empire The Cold War and decolonization happened in roughly the same period of time and were, to many people, one experience rather than two. Because the Cold War and decolonization occurred around the same time, and were equally global in their impact, each influenced the way that the other developed. For these reasons, we tend to study these two trends together. In many ways, the Cold War began before the Second World War even ended. The leaders of the big victorious powers, especially the United States and the Soviet Union, but also Great Britain, met several times during the last years of the Second World War to try to figure out what the post-war world would look like. The last meeting between the Allied powers during the war was held in Yalta, Russia in February 1945. The US, the USSR, and Great Britain attended. It became clear to many people that this meeting was really about dividing much of the world into two separate spheres, one communist and Soviet-dominated, the other capitalist and US-dominated. Three older men sit next to one another in three chairs, smiling. Surrounding them, several other, uniformed men stand, conversing. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, US President Franklin Roosevelt, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meeting at the Yalta Conference in Russia. Public domain. Three older men sit next to one another in three chairs, smiling. Surrounding them, several other, uniformed men stand, conversing. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, US President Franklin Roosevelt, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meeting at the Yalta Conference in Russia. Public domain. Some leaders, like US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, believed that a hard division could be avoided, at first anyway. But British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was less optimistic. After WWII was over, Churchill declared in a 1946 speech that he saw an "Iron Curtain" descending across Europe as Soviet Premiere Joseph Stalin began to establish governments he wanted to control throughout Eastern Europe. The Cold War timeline In 1947, US President Harry Truman said he would support anti-communist governments anywhere in the world. What followed were a series of confrontations, beginning with a Soviet blockade in Berlin, Germany in 1949. The victory of communist forces in China in 1949 helped spread this conflict to Asia, resulting in the Korean War of 1950-1953. Also in 1953, US-supported military leaders overthrew the Prime Minister of Iran, whom they suspected of supporting the Soviet Union. In early 1959, communist rebels in Cuba overthrew a US-aligned government, and the conflict quickly expanded in Central America and the Caribbean. Throughout the 1960s, US-supported forces and Soviet forces faced each other across the border between eastern and western Europe. Meanwhile, conflict spread to Southeast Asia with US forces supporting southern Vietnam as communist China and the Soviets supported northern Vietnam. In the late 1970s, Cold War confrontations really flared in southern Africa, but also picked up steam in the Americas. Both of these regional conflicts continued into the 1980s. The communist governments of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed between 1989 and 1991. The decolonization timeline At the same time, much of the world was decolonizing. That is, societies everywhere were rejecting their colonizers to become independent, self-ruling nation- states. Movements to end colonialism had been in motion for a long time, but they only really took hold at the end of the Second World War. When Italy was defeated in 1945, some former Italian colonies—including Libya—became independent. Similarly, the former Japanese colony of Korea became two independent countries, although dominated by the US (in South Korea) and the Soviet Union (in North Korea). In the late 1940s, a few other countries began to win their independence, including the Dutch colony of Indonesia in 1949. Probably the biggest change was the successful independence of the British colony of India in 1948, along with a partition that allowed Pakistan to be its own country. In 1954, in the French colony of Indochina—made up of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia—a Vietnamese force defeated the French military at Dien Bien Phu. Vietnam became independent with elections planned for 1956. Prime Minister Julius Nyrere, smiling, is being held in the air by a crowd of people. He holds up a sign that reads “Complete Independence 1961”Prime Minister Julius Nyrere celebrates decolonization in Tanganyika (later known as Tanzania), 1961. By The National Archives UK, OGL v1.0. Prime Minister Julius Nyrere, smiling, is being held in the air by a crowd of people. He holds up a sign that reads “Complete Independence 1961” Prime Minister Julius Nyrere celebrates decolonization in Tanganyika (later known as Tanzania), 1961. By The National Archives UK, OGL v1.0. Colonized people everywhere took heart from these events, especially in North Africa where decolonization movements gained power. In 1957, Ghana became the first independent sub-Saharan African country. The "year of Africa"—1960—saw seventeen colonies gain independence from the British, French, and Belgian imperial powers. Then over in the Caribbean, Jamaica won its independence in 1962, as did many other islands soon after. But the process was slowed where there were European settlers, and in southern Africa, in particular, it continued into the early 1990s. Entanglements I: The view of anti-colonial leaders Why did we give you these two, condensed, possibly confusing timelines? If your eyes just moved over those dates quickly, hardly taking in any details, we don't blame you. But go back and just see how those two timelines coincided. You may see a remarkable overlap between the decolonization and the Cold War timelines. The Cold War and decolonization didn't just coincide in terms of the timing. They also overlapped in at least two other ways. First, each trend was linked by the actions of the leaders of anti-colonial movements. These leaders, often including veterans of the Second World War, were always looking for allies to help them achieve independence for their own colony. They found that their own struggle was happening in the battleground of a different conflict between two great powers. Naturally, they thought that one or both of those powers might help them. So, many leaders of decolonization movements tried to get either the United States or the Soviet Union on their side. Leaders who leaned towards socialism turned to the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba. Many truly believed that communism was a model for their own nation's development. Others just felt that since the United States was allied to the big imperial powers—in many cases their former colonizers—the Soviets were their best chance for support. Because the United States was allied with many of the great empires—such as Britain and France—recruiting their help with decolonization needed a different approach. Other, more conservative anti-colonial leaders appealed to the United States for support by saying that, as leaders of new independent nations, they could help stop the spread of communism in their region. During the Cold War, of course, that was the number one item on the American wish list. Entanglements II: The view from the two superpowers The Cold War and decolonization were also linked by the actions of the two superpowers. The US proclaimed that it supported democracy and free markets. The Soviet Union promised to liberate workers from the shackles of capitalist, imperial rule. That meant both the US and the USSR could be recruited to help anti-colonial movements. Both superpowers declared themselves to be anti-empire, though some historians argue they were really building empires of their own. The Soviets treated Eastern European states almost like colonies, and often tried to dominate their allies around the world. The United States practiced a kind of informal imperialism where they replaced leaders they did not like in other countries—Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Salvador Allende in Chile were prime examples. As a result, many leaders of independence movements in the 1960s and 1970s tried to be "nonaligned"—to not pick a side. But in the end, many of these leaders faced interference from either the Americans or the Soviets, so they had to turn to the other side for help anyway! Whether you were a superpower or the leader of an independence movement, you needed allies. That's how the Cold War and decolonization became so deeply entangled. Differing perspectives Again, from the perspective of many people engaged in these struggles, the Cold War and decolonization seemed like one experience, not two separate things. A farmer in Vietnam, supporting her country's independence from French rule, likely saw the intervention of United States forces in the 1960s as just a continuation of colonial rule by western powers. It would not have felt like something new. Another example is when Angolan fighters in southern Africa saw Cuban military forces armed with Soviet material arriving in the 1970s, and they believed they were there to help them achieve their independence. In reality, Cuba's and the Soviet Union's main motivations were their own Cold War struggle against the United States. In each case, there were multiple motives for the events that were happening, but as historical narratives go, it really amounts to one series of events. Looking back, historians are able to separate these two long conflicts because we can see different motives from different people. It seems so obvious that the Cold War was a fight between two superpowers with different economic systems and a desire for supremacy. We can also clearly see how and why people in colonies craved independence. But at the time, decolonization and the Cold War were as entangled as two forest vines. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and World History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Where was Islam Alhashel born and why did her family leave?Where did her family first find refuge, and how did they move onward?What were Islam’s experiences when they arrived in the United States?How does the artist use art and design to depict how Islam’s life was fractured, and then rebuilt? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of Islam Alhashel support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about how different communities have experienced globalization in the contemporary era? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Islam Alhashel (Graphic Biography) Writer: Trevor R. Getz Artist: Liz Clarke Islam Alhashel is a high school student in Ohio and a refugee from the uprising and civil war in Syria. Her experiences are representative of millions of refugees. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What is the WTO?Who were the groups that came to protest, and why were so many different people against the WTO?What is the WTO’s main goal?What did the N30 group list as their main goals?What were the results of the protests? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on this article and other things you have learned about resistance in this course, do you think violent or non-violent protest is more effective?How were anti-globalization movements like N30 and J8 different from and how were they similar to the reform movements of the long nineteenth century? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. WTO Resistance A photograph of a protest scene. A line of cops in full riot gear, wearing shields and holding batons face a line of protestors. By Bridgette Byrd O’Connor Thousands descended on Seattle, Washington in November 1999 to protest the pro-globalization goals of World Trade Organization. What's wrong with globalization? It depends on whom you ask. Background In late November and early December of 1999, thousands converged on downtown Seattle, Washington. The city was flooded with people from different parts of the world, and with different points of view, about the World Trade Organization (WTO). One thing most agreed on was that it was time to challenge the effects of increased globalization, in particular increased global trade. The occasion was the WTO's Ministerial1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript Conference. Some were there simply to attend it, and others came to protest various aspects of the organization and its policies. On the protest side, most were peaceful demonstrators who took to the streets to express their concern that increasing global trade would hurt labor unions, the environment, and developing nations.2^22squared Many held signs that criticized the WTO, and some dressed as sea turtles as a way to call out the impact globalization has on the environment. Lastly, there were others in this large group of people who used more disruptive techniques such as vandalism to criticize multinational corporations. Denis Cooper, a participant in these protests, described how many people felt: "I really realized how connecting it was when I saw all those people…I mean, before, and I want to say before it turned violent, it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen in my life…we all, hundreds of thousands of people, banded together for this one issue. And we all held one thing in our hearts, and that was the WTO had to go. And then the next day when all those people got arrested and they had us in the jails, I really realized how many separate issues I was dealing with here." A photograph shows a man, wearing a handmade sea turtle helmet, is surrounded by other protestors carrying signs.Protesters with signs and a man dressed as a sea turtle at the WTO Ministerial Conference, Seattle, 29 November 1999. From the Seattle Municipal Archives, CC BY 2.0. A photograph shows a man, wearing a handmade sea turtle helmet, is surrounded by other protestors carrying signs. Protesters with signs and a man dressed as a sea turtle at the WTO Ministerial Conference, Seattle, 29 November 1999. From the Seattle Municipal Archives, CC BY 2.0. You may remember from earlier readings that the WTO is a primary institution of international trade and economic globalization. According to the WTO website, "The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world's trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible." All of that sounds pretty reasonable, so why would so many groups be against it? In order to fully answer this question, we have to think about the perspectives of the different people protesting the WTO. They were a loose alliance of numerous groups, many with competing strategies and ideologies. Some were nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—non-profit, voluntary citizens' groups—who wanted the WTO to institute labor and environmental regulations and fair trade practices. Others wanted to do away with the WTO altogether. In contrast, a number of developing countries expressed anti-imperial and even nationalistic sentiments to criticize the WTO. On the fringes, there were anarchists who had a mix of goals. But they mainly wanted to destroy what they called neo-liberal ideologies and increasing globalization. So how did all of these varied, somewhat conflicting interests come together over a few days in Seattle to disrupt the WTO meeting that was being held there? Organizers, participants, and protesters The WTO Ministerial Conference planned to meet in November 1999 in Seattle to fulfill part of the WTO goals of regular meetings regarding global trade negotiations. It was the third meeting of its kind since the formation of the WTO in 1995. The organization's main goal was to get rid of obstacles that limited free trade in a capitalist world economy. Environmental regulations and workers' rights were considered obstacles. Also, tariffs were targeted as a hindrance to free trade, even though some countries felt tariffs were needed to protect their economies from having to compete with goods imported from other countries. A crowd of protestors holding signs. One sign reads “WTO Destroys Forests”.WTO protesters on 7th Avenue, Seattle, 1999. From the Seattle Municipal Archives, CC BY 2.0. A crowd of protestors holding signs. One sign reads “WTO Destroys Forests”. WTO protesters on 7th Avenue, Seattle, 1999. From the Seattle Municipal Archives, CC BY 2.0. The WTO was trying to resolve a number of disputes that had been brewing. Member nations were called upon to submit proposals on various topics including agriculture, labor, and environmental issues. The organization also asked for input from developing countries to understand the impact of global free trade practices on these nations. Over 200 proposals were submitted to the WTO and then compiled into a report. However, the WTO did not effectively address many of the concerns from all of the groups that submitted reports. From the perspective of developing countries as well as many of the nongovernmental organizations, it looked like the WTO wanted only to eliminate the obstacles to free trade, despite the consequences. These groups believed that the WTO wanted to end regulations, even if the regulations were intended to protect the environment, support workers' rights, or help developing nations compete in a global market. The protesters also felt that the WTO was favoring proposals for free trade submitted by industrialized nations such as the United States, the European Union, and Japan. The WTO was criticized for dismissing the concerns of nations that were not as industrialized or wealthy. Outside of the inner workings of the WTO, both lobbyists and protesters wanted changes. Some were mainline NGOs such as the European American Business Council and the Fair Trade Center. In addition, there were labor unions like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, and student groups that included United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) also weighed in. Among and between these groups were some protesters who embraced anarchist strategies. That is to say, they opposed large-scale organization and government in any form, and believed in bringing it down through confrontational and sometimes violent tactics. There were a wide range of groups overall, but all were either opposed to certain WTO policies or believed that the organization should be outright abolished. The protests Therefore, a combination of disorganization and competing interests within the WTO as well as protests from outside the WTO led to two days of peaceful protests, violent clashes, and hundreds of arrests in Seattle from November 30 to December 1, 1999. The people trying to organize these diverse protest groups found it near impossible to address everyone's goals and desires. Some groups didn't want to march with others because their goals were too different. Other groups wanted to wreak havoc on the area through violent anti-globalization and anti-corporate protests. Most wanted to band together to form a collective voice that could express, non-violently, what they wanted from the WTO. Organized protests have occurred throughout history. The Women's October March stood up against the king during the French Revolution; Gandhi organized protests against imperial governments in India. Many protested the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and we often see marches and protests to support the rights of women, LGBTQ+ people, and people of color. Also, this event in Seattle was by no means the first organized protest against a global organization. In the late 1980s there were organized protests in Berlin against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and another in Paris in 1989 against the backdrop of the G7 Summit.3^33cubed Protesters once again took to the street in Madrid in 1994 to demonstrate against the IMF and World Bank. Anti-globalization protests were organized on an international scale in June 1999. Known as the J8, protesters met in an array of cities including London, England; Eugene, Oregon; and Cologne, Germany to rally against the policies that were being discussed at the G8 Summit. The Seattle protests, also known as N30 in reference to the date of November 30, were as diverse and complicated as other anti-globalization efforts, if not more so. Here is a summary of the various goals we've discussed, but bear in mind these were prioritized differently by different groups: Get multinational corporations and the WTO to help reform labor practices in developing nations.Protect the environment from the negative effects caused by global trade.Stop ignoring developing nations while favoring policies put forth by the U.S., the European Union, and Japan. In many ways, the concerns of the protesters outside mirrored the discussions that were supposed to be happening inside at the WTO Ministerial Conference. Their goals—though also not universally agreed upon—could be summarized like this: Give developing nations a say in new trade regulations being proposed.Hear the concerns some nations have regarding environmental and labor issues.Reduce trade regulations and restrictions in order to increase the profits of international corporations. While the protesters are referred to as anti-globalists, it's not like they want to shut down global trade and the movement of goods and people. Rather, they are usually concerned with corporate greed, fair labor practices, and environmental protection. Those who were advocating for an end to the WTO and promoting violence through anarchist tactics were often on the fringes of the protest groups. However, it was their actions that gained the most media attention. Many broke windows and vandalized property at businesses, generally global chains such as Starbucks and Nike. In general, most protests seek to call attention to a problem by causing disruption, but not violence. Despite the violent acts at the N30 protest, things began peacefully. Thousands of people took to the streets to block entryways to the Washington State Convention Center, where the WTO Ministerial Conference was held. The idea was to prevent enough conference attendees from getting to the meetings to get the meeting canceled. They achieved this goal, but that other goal of a non-violent protest became harder to manage. The anarchists encouraged confrontational tactics and vandalism, and the police responded by launching tear gas and firing rubber bullets at all protesters, not just the violent ones. The Seattle Police seemed unprepared for the scale and size of the event. In the end the Seattle mayor had to declare martial law, call in the National Guard, and hundreds of protesters (both violent and peaceful) were arrested. Numerous people would later sue the city of Seattle for wrongful arrest and city officials were forced to pay over $200,000 to those who won their cases. A photograph shows a police officer in full riot gear, flanked by several others, directly pepper-spraying several kneeling, peaceful protestors. The protestors are covering their faces and two of them are holding up peace signs with their hands despite being attacked. Seattle police pepper spray WTO protesters, 30 November 1999. By Steve Kaiser, CC BY-SA 2.0. A photograph shows a police officer in full riot gear, flanked by several others, directly pepper-spraying several kneeling, peaceful protestors. The protestors are covering their faces and two of them are holding up peace signs with their hands despite being attacked. Seattle police pepper spray WTO protesters, 30 November 1999. By Steve Kaiser, CC BY-SA 2.0. Results? The story of the Seattle protests was not exactly new, but it did seem to usher forth a new era in mass organization against economic globalization. The protesters also brought the issue to the attention of the media and generated publicity for their causes. New international networks were forged between protest groups that began to work together to achieve their goals of free and fair trade practices. There are continued organized protests at many of the meetings of the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and at government summits such as the G-7. [Notes] Author bio Bridgette Byrd O’Connor holds a DPhil in history from the University of Oxford and has taught Big History, World History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics for the past ten years at the high school level. In addition, she has been a freelance writer and editor for the Big History Project and the Crash Course World History and U.S. History curriculums. [Sources and attributions]

Appeasement [[header image]] By Jeff Spoden Appeasement. It sounds nice. But the failed attempts to appease Adolf Hitler in the lead up to World War II have become a historical punchline, with some serious consequences. Introduction The dictionary defines appeasement as the attempt to bring about a state of peace, quiet, ease, or calm. In history, however, the word usually refers to the unsuccessful effort by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain to keep Adolph Hitler from starting World War II. Today, this historical example of appeasement is used by anyone who favors confrontation over negotiation, citing Chamberlain as a weak leader who was duped by Hitler. Many believe that if Chamberlain had not tried to appease the German dictator, and had taken a tough stance from the beginning, the war might have been avoided. [[image 1]] It is true that Prime Minister Chamberlain, and his predecessor, Stanley Baldwin, did little to stop German aggression after 1935. The slaughter of the First World War was still fresh in people’s minds, and there weren’t a lot of leaders or citizens in Britain or France who were willing to risk yet another devastating war with Germany. At the same time, there were many Brits who believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been unfair to Germany. They believed that Hitler’s violations of the treaty—such as remilitarizing Germany and moving troops into the demilitarized Rhineland—were justified. Many even believed that fascism was preferable to the sort of communism being pioneered in Stalin’s Soviet Union. So, in the mid-1930s, appeasement was a very popular policy. Making nice with Hitler, in hopes that agreeing to limited German expansion would satisfy him, made sense to millions of Europeans. Chronology of appeasement But as Hitler continued to violate the Treaty of Versailles and began invading Germany’s neighbors, people in Britain and France grew concerned, and many condemned German expansion. Still, the British and French governments took no serious action. Here’s a chart of each German aggression and the British and French appeasement that followed: [[table 1]] Chamberlain in the rearview mirror Looking back now, it seems obvious that appeasement was a bad strategy. For many, Chamberlain is a punchline—a weak leader who allowed the spread of Nazism across Europe. But at the time, this was far from obvious. Until the war started, many French and British citizens wanted their leaders to do anything and everything to keep them out of another war. France had been the main battlefield of the First World War, and the French were reluctant to face that destruction again. And in England, two prime ministers, much of the military, the royal family, and most citizens, believed in appeasement. They hoped that, if they gave Hitler what he wanted, he would be satisfied and they might avoid war. When Germany invaded Poland, however, many realized that conflict was inevitable. At that point, the public started to judge Chamberlain’s appeasement harshly. Interestingly, Winston Churchill, a chief critic of appeasement in 1939, had actually been a proponent of it until 1938, at least in terms of dealing with Italy and Japan. Neville Chamberlain has come down through popular history as the weak, passive leader whom Hitler conned. And appeasement, the strategy favored by a large majority in Europe until late 1939, has come to represent a policy of failure. It’s now regarded as an approach to conflict that ranges from naïve and cowardly to extremely dangerous. The specter of appeasement Since the end of World War II, some politicians have even used Chamberlain’s failed appeasement to justify conflict and war. Some have connected serious diplomacy with Chamberlain and his misguided capitulation (giving in) to Hitler. Some examples: U.S. president Harry Truman, writing about his decision to go to war in Korea in 1950: I remembered how each time that the democracies failed to act, it had encouraged the aggressors to keep going ahead. Communism was acting in Korea just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen and twenty years earlier.... If this was allowed to go unchallenged it would mean a third world war, just as similar incidents had brought on a second world war. U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, spoke about Vietnam and implied that America would stand up to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong in a way that Chamberlain had not stood up to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Since Chamberlain was frequently photographed carrying an umbrella, Johnson was quoted as stating: “We’re not going to have any men with any umbrellas.” Margaret Thatcher, prime minister of England from 1979 to 1990, responded to a critic of Britain’s involvement in the first Iraq war by recalling: “I seem to hear the stench of appeasement in here. A rather nauseating stench of appeasement.” Writing for the Los Angeles Times just before the first Gulf War, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, German author, poet, and editor, said: “I would like to demonstrate that talk of Saddam Hussein as an heir to Hitler is no journalistic metaphor, no propagandistic exaggeration, but rather goes to the heart of the matter. We do not do justice to the “Fuhrer” of Iraq if we underestimate his dangerousness, if we portray him only as a traditional despot or a modern dictator.” But this stop-the-next-Hitler line of thinking also has its critics. Using Hitler and appeasement to justify war certainly grabs one’s attention and emotions, but it’s seen by many as a pretty misleading, even reckless, analogy. None of the modern “villains” being equated to Hitler are anywhere near as harmful as he was, at least in the above examples. Critics say that playing the Hitler card over and over again is deceptive and dangerous. The worry is that it both downplays the real threat Germany posed to the world, and it acts to justify wars that may not need fighting. For example, the quotes above made Saddam Hussein out to be the next Adolph Hitler, when in fact, his country couldn’t win an 8-year war with its neighbor Iran, let alone pose a threat to the entire world. The relative power of Iraq’s army was a fraction of 1930s Germany, and there was little evidence to suggest that Hussein would use that power beyond his immediate neighbors. But once he was “Hitlerized’ into a madman bent on world domination, anyone looking for alternatives to war were branded modern-day Chamberlains, and this thinking helped launch two questionable wars. Conclusion It seems that as long as there are conflicts between nations, Neville Chamberlain will remain the great historical wimp. He seems doomed to be resurrected by those who use his legacy to stoke fears and justify conflict. But more recently, many historians have tried to salvage his legacy and contextualize his actions. Perhaps this historical reclamation project can help stimulate real debate about the significant differences between negotiation and appeasement—about what was happening in Europe during the 1930s and the lessons we can learn from Chamberlain’s failure. [Notes] Author bio Jeff Spoden is a retired social studies teacher, having been in the classroom for 33 years. He taught US history, world history, sociology, international relations, and history of American popular music. He loves music, film, travel, the Golden State Warriors, and the number 32. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What major political transformation took place in China after World War II, and how did it shape the nation’s approach to modernization and industrialization?What was “The Great Leap Forward,” and why did it fail?According to the author, Mao Zedong believed that the best way to improve China’s economy was to transform “the very cultural fabric of the country.” What do they mean by this? What were some of the cultural policies Mao implemented in his efforts to improve the nation’s economy?How did Mao’s nationalist campaign, “the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” create new hostilities within Chinese society during the 1960s?How did China’s economic policies change during the 1980s? How have these changes helped to integrate China into the global economy? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. Since this is the first reading assignment of the course, you may not connect it to much other than the knowledge you already have. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How has globalization affected Chinese communities? How has China’s entry into the global economy affected communities outside of China?According to the author, many scholars have described China’s economic rise as part of “a great ‘divergence’ between East and West.” What do you think this means? Based on what you have learned in this lesson and throughout this era, do you agree? Why or why not? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Rise of China A man stands in front of an electronic board showing numbers representing stock market movements. By Eman M. Elshaikh Since World War II, China's economy has grown massively. Economic growth took off in the 1980s, and today China is a powerful global economic center. Introduction A Napoleon Bonaparte quote has been popping up in a strange place over the last two decades: in the financial columns. As economists have tracked China's exponential economic growth, they have cited Napoleon's alleged prediction, "Let China sleep; when she wakes she will shake the world." Regardless of whether or not Napoleon actually did say this and what he meant by it, China is definitely awake! And it is radically transforming the world economy. Since 1980, China's economy has grown faster than any other in the world. A map shows China’s economic growth in comparison to other nations. All of the other nations have experienced growth, but China has experienced the highest growth rate by far.China and other major developing economies by GDP per capita at purchasing-power parity, 1990–2013. The rapid economic growth of China (blue) is readily apparent. CircleAdrian from World Bank World Development Indicators 2014 data, CC BY-SA 3.0. A map shows China’s economic growth in comparison to other nations. All of the other nations have experienced growth, but China has experienced the highest growth rate by far. China and other major developing economies by GDP per capita at purchasing-power parity, 1990–2013. The rapid economic growth of China (blue) is readily apparent. CircleAdrian from World Bank World Development Indicators 2014 data, CC BY-SA 3.0. But was China ever sleeping? And what woke it up? It's difficult to say. Historians and economists have many different answers to these questions. Compared to Europe and the United States, which were rapidly developing in the nineteenth century, China's economy did seem to be pretty sleepy for a few centuries. But the reasons for this are complicated—and we won't really address them here. But we will talk about China's economic development in the latter half of the twentieth century. Though it experienced some growth during the era of the Communist leader Mao Zedong (1949-1976), China's economy really flourished in the decades after Mao's death. Why? Historians and economists cite many different reasons, but there are a couple of common ones. First, the state of China became decentralized. Second, the economy became increasingly privatized. Others point to various cultural factors. These include things like the "Confucian ethic" and even capitalist incentives. Taking a peek into the history of China's economy since WWII might help us make sense of these changes. China after World War II In the mid-twentieth century, the Communist Party of China won a brutal civil war. There began a new era of communist leadership under Mao Zedong. The country's leaders set about modernizing and industrializing China. But this modernity had to have a communist flavor, as opposed to capitalist values. A photo of a crowded cafeteria, taken from above. Four-top tables are crowded with people that are eating their meals.Commune members eating collectively in a commune cafeteria in 1958. These cafeterias provided free meals until agricultural production slowed. Public domain. A photo of a crowded cafeteria, taken from above. Four-top tables are crowded with people that are eating their meals. Commune members eating collectively in a commune cafeteria in 1958. These cafeterias provided free meals until agricultural production slowed. Public domain. This took the shape of rural land reform, collectivizing agriculture, and investments in urban industries. Land and resources were totally redistributed. By mid- century, some of these efforts had improved the standard of living for the average Chinese person. Poverty declined, literacy rates rose, and educational opportunities increased. However, Mao was not satisfied with the pace or distribution of progress. Growth was still moderate, and it was very uneven. While cities grew and gained wealth, rural areas simply did not keep up. A photo shows several workers in a field, where many outdoor furnaces have been erected. Backyard furnace used to produce steel during the Great Leap Forward, 1958. Workers often labored through the night to make steel. Public domain. A photo shows several workers in a field, where many outdoor furnaces have been erected. Backyard furnace used to produce steel during the Great Leap Forward, 1958. Workers often labored through the night to make steel. Public domain. In the late 1950s, Mao introduced a campaign called The Great Leap Forward. A major goal of this effort was industrializing the countryside. This called for small- scale industry in the countryside, more widely available education, and the use of "people's communes." The Great Leap Forward had some successful aspects. Vital infrastructure such as railroads, bridges, canals, reservoirs, mines, power stations, and irrigation systems were improved. But ultimately, this plan was a failure. In the rush to industrialize, communist leaders promoted projects that sometimes had greater costs than benefits. Combined with bad weather, these problems resulted in a devastating famine. In the early 1960s, about twenty million people died. In the mid-1960s, Mao introduced yet another campaign. It was called the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Mao believed that the stagnating economy was partly because of capitalist values in the Communist Party. The solution, for Mao, was to set about transforming the very cultural fabric of the country. He wanted to revolutionize the way people related to one another and to the state. In the late 1960s, the Red Guard, a militarized social movement made up mostly of young men, were mobilized to destroy the "Four Olds" of pre-communist China: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. As a result, many of China's historical heritage was destroyed, as it was seen as representing capitalist, feudal, or backwards ways of thinking. This had negative effects on religious communities and ethnic minorities. Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim heritage and communities often came under attack. They were seen as either old or foreign. Christian convents, Buddhist monasteries, Muslim mosques, and cemeteries for foreign people were destroyed. In some cases worshippers were killed. Ethnic minorities, including Mongolians, Uyghurs, Hui, Koreans, and Tibetans, were often persecuted or killed. A drawn picture depicts Red Guard youth destroying things associated with traditional ideas, culture, customs, and habits, such as a sculpture of Buddha.Cultural Revolution propaganda poster. The Red Guards protest by brandishing an anti Maoist book by Hai Jui, c.1967, China.© Getty Images. A drawn picture depicts Red Guard youth destroying things associated with traditional ideas, culture, customs, and habits, such as a sculpture of Buddha. Cultural Revolution propaganda poster. The Red Guards protest by brandishing an anti Maoist book by Hai Jui, c.1967, China.© Getty Images. Photograph of three faceless, stone statues.Faces of Buddha statues that were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. Pat B, CC BY-SA 2.0. Photograph of three faceless, stone statues. Faces of Buddha statues that were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. Pat B, CC BY-SA 2.0. Changing directions The Cultural Revolution had loudly asserted Mao's radical vision of communism. It also strongly rejected capitalist values. But in the decades after Mao's death, China moved in the opposite direction. Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping during the 1980s, China underwent massive economic reforms. The Chinese economy became less centrally planned. It evolved into what Deng Xiaoping described in a 1984 speech as "socialism with Chinese characteristics." Like Mao, Deng Xiaoping wanted to increase production and modernize the country. But he did not reject the West. Deng Xiaoping's approach to developing production was a lot more open to foreign influences. This meant that capitalist approaches also increasingly influenced the Chinese economy. Many Mao-era reforms were dismantled. Agriculture and industry were privatized in many sectors. Special Economic Zones, mostly on the coasts, attracted foreign investment by offering tax breaks. These included inexpensive labor and other incentives. Tourism also increased. Some restrictions on religious activity were relaxed, and places of worship reopened. A modern-day photograph shows an impressive skyline, featuring many tall and modern buildings, along the water. A ship is on the water in front of the skyline. The Lujiazui financial district of Pudong, Shanghai, the financial and commercial hub of modern China. Simon Desmarais, CC BY-SA 2.0. A modern-day photograph shows an impressive skyline, featuring many tall and modern buildings, along the water. A ship is on the water in front of the skyline. The Lujiazui financial district of Pudong, Shanghai, the financial and commercial hub of modern China. Simon Desmarais, CC BY-SA 2.0. Deng Xiaoping's stated goal was to drastically improve the standard of living by the end of the century. Though he retired in 1989, his goal was ultimately accomplished. After the Maoist era, China was politically stable, and the economy took off. Poverty declined, and the average Chinese person was healthier, with better overall nutrition, a higher life expectancy, and a lower incidence of disease. Urban centers were energized, with exports booming. While these policies looked more capitalist, Deng Xiaoping explained that it didn't matter if things appeared more communist or capitalist. What mattered was what was good for China. China and the global economy It seems like half of all the goods we use (if not more) are labeled "Made in China," but this wasn't always the case. Before the economic reforms from the mid-1970s, China exported far fewer products globally. As these reforms took effect, China played a new role in the global economy. By the early 2000s, China had become the largest supplier of clothing, shoes, computer components, and seafood. By 2010, China was the world's second largest economy. In 2011, it became the world's largest manufacturer. This economic integration meant greater political integration. China increasingly had better diplomatic relations with Western countries. It also established important connections with other regions, most notably Africa. Chinese corporations play a huge role in Africa. There both the Chinese government and private companies invest massively in infrastructure, energy, and banking. The goal has been to invest in Africa by supporting building projects through low-interest loans. This is part of China's Road and Belt Initiative to increase trade. Some of this investment has paid off. Both African nations and China have reaped the rewards of increased trade and the creation of more jobs. Other projects, however, have not been as successful. If the project fails then it is the African nation left on the hook to pay back these Chinese-backed loans. Critics have stated that China's involvement in these projects is just a new form of imperialism. Supporters argue that China's investments have given African nations an economic boost. Four people sit in soft armchairs, smiling and drinking tea.Deng Xiaoping (center) with U.S. president Gerald Ford (left), First Lady Betty Ford (right), and Deng’s interpreter (back), 1975. Public doma Four people sit in soft armchairs, smiling and drinking tea. Deng Xiaoping (center) with U.S. president Gerald Ford (left), First Lady Betty Ford (right), and Deng’s interpreter (back), 1975. Public doma China is also connected to vibrant networks in East and Southeast Asia and beyond. In the 1990s, China joined the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank. These new connections pushed Chinese policies even further toward open markets. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization. After China entered these international networks, they began to replace Japan as the leading producer and distributor of goods around the world. This might all seem very positive, but it definitely brings new challenges. China experiences major problems like urban overcrowding, crime, regional disparities, and environmental degradation. As a result of privatization, social and economic inequality have also increased. Wealth has become more concentrated. Corruption among officials and elite families continues to be a concern. The downsizing of the state sector and the military meant that many lost their jobs. This contributed to massive internal migration. Over a hundred million Chinese are now migrant laborers, either abroad or in China. So how do we understand these economic transformations? It's clear that economic liberalization played a huge role, for better or for worse. Some might see this as China "waking up" and "re-emerging,". But it's more accurate to describe this as a different path toward industrialization. Many scholars present this in terms of a great "divergence" between the East and West. After an earlier "rise of the West," was China's rapid growth part of the "rise of the East"? Indeed, in the past few decades, East Asia's share of world production has increased, while American and European shares have decreased. We can speculate about what this means, but the truth is that there aren't quick and easy answers. This is still a very hot debate, and we have to consider mounds of evidence to answer this question. What's definitely clear is that China is now more than ever a powerful global center, and it will likely continue to have a massive economic force in the future. Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences, focusing on history and anthropology. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

Non-State Terrorism By Bennett Sherry Terrorism sounds like a newer problem than it is. The instruments of terrorism may have changed, but many of the tactics and goals have been the same for centuries. Misconceptions about terror When you read the word, “terrorism,” what’s the first thing that comes to mind? If your first thoughts were about militant Islamism, you’re not alone. Many people—especially in the United States—associate the word terrorism specifically with violent actions of radical Islamists. Attacks by Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) and Boko Haram get a lot of media attention. But the fact is that there’s nothing uniquely Islamic about terrorism and nothing particularly terrorist about Islam. Terrorism is very much a part of our world in the twenty-first century, and it serves us better to figure out why it exists in broad terms than to focus specifically on one type of terrorism. The United Nations typically defines terrorism as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.”1^1 1start superscript, 1, end superscript At its most basic, terrorism uses violence to create fear. Less organized or smaller groups use terrorism as a tool against states and other big, organized communities. Terrorism is designed to scare a government, the public, or a group of people into changing their behavior.2^2 2squared Historically, the people who employ the tools of terror think of themselves as freedom fighters or revolutionaries, not terrorists. They believe they are fighting oppression. Most have an ideology—anarchism, nationalism, Marxism, white supremacy, militant jihadism, and others—that defines how society should look. A long history of terror We tend to think about terrorism as a modern invention. It’s not. Some historians point to examples of terrorism in the ancient and medieval periods. A group of Jewish rebels called Sicarri murdered civilians who opposed their revolt against Roman rule. The Hashashins were a Muslim sect in Persia during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. They assassinated political leaders in opposition of Seljuk rule. In 1605, Guy Fawkes, an English Catholic, plotted to blow up the English Parliament with gunpowder. He and his co-conspirators hoped to kill the king and inspire a Catholic rebellion, but they were caught and their plot foiled. Daggers and gunpowder are very different from hijacked airplanes. But the motivation, tactics, and goals of these early groups shared a lot in common with terrorism today. Both then and now, a non-state group wanted to defeat a state, and they attacked civilians and officials to create an atmosphere of fear. The Industrial Revolution provided new tools for terrorists. Dynamite was invented in 1867 to make mining more efficient, but it was also useful for blowing up political opponents. Anarchists in the United States and Europe especially used dynamite for political assassinations. Terrorists during the long nineteenth century generally targeted political leaders, rather than civilians. A group of Russian revolutionaries used dynamite to assassinate the Russian Tzar, Alexander II, in 1881. Assassins’ bullets and explosives killed several kings, emperors, prime ministers, presidents, and industrialists in the nineteenth century. The assassins called this sort of terrorism “propaganda by deed.” An illustration of the assassination of Tzar Alexander II in March 1881. Public domain. Terrorism in the twentieth century Three social transformations changed terrorism in the twentieth century: democracy, urbanization, and nationalism. By this time, more people lived under democratic regimes—which made killing a king much less effective. Thus, terrorists turned their attention toward masses of civilians, and with cities getting more crowded, explosives were more effective. Finally, nationalists increasingly used terror against the empires that ruled them. In the Austrian, Ottoman, and British Empires, nationalists used violence and terror to secure national independence. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) was formed during World War I to support of the Irish War of Independence. Unable to directly challenge the mighty British Empire, they used guerilla warfare, bombings, and assassinations. After Ireland won independence, the IRA focused on Northern Ireland, which remained part of the UK. The IRA attacked Protestant civilians and British leaders from the 1960s through the 1990s, until a political deal in 1998 brought an end to the period known as “the Troubles.” The aftermath of an IRA bombing at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, England in 1984. The bomb was intended to assassinate Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, but she escaped. Five others were killed and dozens injured. Public domain. Other groups used terrorism not against a foreign empire, but against their own government. A revolutionary communist group in Peru called the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) attacked Peruvian officials and civilians. They wanted to topple the government and replace it with communism. In the 1980s and 1990s, Shining Path members assassinated leaders, destroyed infrastructure, and bombed public spaces. Far-right groups have also used terrorism. In the United States, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was founded after the Civil War. During the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s, the KKK reemerged and launched a campaign of terror to intimidate African American citizens. They used lynching, cross burning, and murder to repress voting and uphold segregation. KKK members stand next to a burning cross in 1958. The KKK burned crosses in public view as one method of intimidation against African Americans. Public domain. Today, we often associate terrorism with religion, but most twentieth-century terrorism was secular. At the 1972 Olympics, a group of Palestinian terrorists murdered eleven members of the Israeli national team. As terrorist organizations grew in the Middle East, tactics such as embassy bombing and plane hijacking became more common. These groups focused on political goals. However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 set the stage for a new sort of terrorism: militant jihadism. The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted ten years, providing training and experience to many of the fighters who would later join groups like Al-Qaeda. These Mujahideen3^3 3cubed soon left Afghanistan to fight in conflicts in other parts of the world. Militant jihadist organizations have become the face of terrorism in the twenty-first century. Al-Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11 and the American response helped expand several other militant jihadist organizations. The Islamic State (ISIS) rose to prominence in 2014, seizing control of territory in Iraq and Syria. In Nigeria, Boko Haram has committed assassinations, kidnapping, and bombings to undermine the Nigerian government. Western governments and media might focus on militant jihadists, but these groups do not have a monopoly on the use of terror. Recently, white supremacists have committed terrorist attacks around the world. Mass shootings at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed 11 people, and the Charleston Church Massacre, where 9 died, were designed to intimidate Jewish and African American communities, respectively. In Christchurch New Zealand, a white supremacist attacked two mosques in an anti-Muslim attack, killing 51 people. A group of people stand in front of a memorial to the victims of the 2018 Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh, PA. By Daveynin, CC BY 2.0. When terror wins Terrorists want to provoke an overreaction. They want to seem like a huge, existential threat to create fear, panic, and chaos. Governments have used the fear of terrorism to justify wars and surveillance of their own citizens, spreading violence abroad and curtailing freedoms at home. After the 9/11 attacks, a global war on terror mobilized national governments to brutally repress terrorist groups. The Tamil Tigers, for example, had operated in Sri Lanka since the 1970s. But in 2009, the government crushed the revolutionary group, using brutal violence and mass imprisonment, widely criticized by human rights groups. The war on terror was in itself so terrifying it changed the strategies of many older, non-Islamist terrorist organizations. Some groups, like Euskadi ta Askatasuna—a Basque separatist party in Spain—declared a truce in 2006 and ceased violent attacks, partly in fear of being associated with Islamist terrorism and becoming a target in the war on terror. Are we too afraid of terrorists? Deaths from terrorist attacks have increased in recent decades, but the number is still relatively small. 2014 was the deadliest year for terrorist attacks, with 32,685 people killed globally. This is a large number, but it is still quite small relative to total causes of death. And if you’re reading this from a wealthy nation, your risk of dying in a terrorist attack is miniscule. The media focuses most of its attention on terrorist attacks in wealthy, Western nations. But attacks in these nations account for a tiny percentage of the global total. In 2017, terrorism accounted for 0.05 percent of global deaths, or 1 in 2,000. Of these, only 0.9 percent were in the world’s wealthiest nations (home to about 1 billion people), or about 1 in 222,000. When there is a terrorist attack—especially in North America or Western Europe—it’s all over the news. Governments respond forcefully, and there is an outpouring of emotion and fear. But this fear makes the danger seem larger than it really is, which creates chaos. This is the exact reaction that terrorist attacks are designed to provoke. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in history from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a research associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attribution]

Arms Race, Space Race Colorful propaganda poster of a Russian astronaut in looking at a rocket in the sky, the Soviet hammer-and-sickle symbol in its wake. By Bennett Sherry During the Cold War, the two superpowers raced to build the most destructive arsenal in history. This competition caused several terrifying crises and launched the space race. Photo of a nuclear bomb just as it is being detonated.The first nuclear weapons test, at Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1945. © Getty Images. Photo of a nuclear bomb just as it is being detonated. The first nuclear weapons test, at Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1945. © Getty Images. The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beautiful, stupendous and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred...[It was a] strong, sustained awesome roar which warned of doomsday and made us feel that we puny things were blasphemous to dare tamper with the forces heretofore reserved to The Almighty. —General Thomas F. Farrell, describing the first nuclear test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, 1945 Doomsday devices From 1945 until 1949, the United States controlled every nuclear weapon in the world. President Harry Truman remains the only world leader to use nuclear weapons in war. But the American monopoly on the atom bomb ended in 1949 as the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon. As the USSR and US shifted from World War allies to Cold War enemies, an arms race to develop the most and best nuclear weapons defined their relationship. The nuclear arms race accelerated quickly. The bombs the Americans dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equivalent to 15,000 and 20,000 tons of TNT. They leveled cities and killed tens of thousands of civilians. In 1953, the Americans tested the first hydrogen bomb, with the Soviets doing the same a year later. These new bombs were measured in millions of tons of TNT, not thousands. In 1961, the Soviets tested a bomb that remains the largest ever. At 50 million tons of TNT, the Tsar Bomba was 3,333 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima. Soon, the two Cold War rivals were pointing tens of thousands of intercontinental nuclear warheads at each other. For forty years, the creative and economic energies of the two most powerful countries in human history were racing to develop the most powerful form of energy ever harnessed—and turning it toward the task of war. They each created missiles capable of traveling around the world in minutes, carrying warheads that were, collectively, capable of obliterating human life on this planet. A MAD race to Armageddon After Germany surrendered at the end of the Second World War, the leaders of the allied nations met at the Potsdam Conference to discuss the future shape of world politics. At the conference, US President Truman—who was new to the job and a little intimidated by the larger-than-life figures of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin—wanted to look strong. He boasted to Stalin that his government had a secret powerful new weapon.1^1 1start superscript, 1, end superscript A few months later, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided a real-world demonstration of this destructive power. Truman had failed to consult his Soviet allies before he used the bombs against Japanese civilians. As a result, Stalin assumed the Americans wanted to intimidate the USSR. He was so alarmed that he directed all available funds toward building a Soviet bomb. In 1949, after the first successful Soviet nuclear test, Stalin reflected that, “atomic weapons can hardly be used without spelling the end of the world.” Nonetheless, he believed that the weapons were the Soviet Union’s only protection against an American bomb. Black and white photo of three older men sitting in wicker chairs outdoors, with microphones in front of them.The “Big Three”—Churchill, Truman, and Stalin—at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. Two of these men were world-famous leaders who guided their nations through the Second World War. One had become president when Franklin D. Roosevelt died four months earlier. Public domain. Black and white photo of three older men sitting in wicker chairs outdoors, with microphones in front of them. The “Big Three”—Churchill, Truman, and Stalin—at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. Two of these men were world-famous leaders who guided their nations through the Second World War. One had become president when Franklin D. Roosevelt died four months earlier. Public domain. The resulting arms race shaped the course of the Cold War. The rivals focused on overproducing nuclear weapons in a strategy called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD is just as crazy as it sounds. The theory was, if two countries each possessed the ability to obliterate the other, neither would risk an attack. It prevented direct conflict between the two superpowers, but it created the possibility of total global destruction if they ever actually went to war with each other. Did MAD work? Maybe. Unless I missed something, we didn’t live through nuclear Armageddon during the Cold War. Nuclear Weapons made total war on the scale of World War II unthinkable and unwinnable. In a 1960 speech, French president Charles de Gaulle imagined the aftermath of nuclear war: “The two sides would have neither powers, nor laws, nor cities, nor culture, nor cradles, nor tombs.” Millions of people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America died in Cold War proxy conflicts—that is, conflicts supported by the Americans and Soviets but fought elsewhere. So the world did avoid nuclear war. Yet the MAD strategy left no room for mistakes, and in 1962 the world came very close to a big one. Cuban Missile Crisis and non-proliferation For 13 days in October 1962, the world stood on the brink of nuclear war. The Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from the coast of Florida. In response, President Kennedy blockaded the island nation, threatening invasion. During the standoff, nuclear war was barely averted as Kennedy and the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, chose not to respond to provocations from the other side—sometimes against the advice of their generals. The crisis ended in compromise. Khrushchev removed the missiles from Cuba, and Kennedy agreed to not invade Cuba. Secretly, Kennedy also removed American missiles from Turkey, which bordered the USSR. Aerial view of a military facility with labels identifying launch position, missile-ready tents, and missile erectors.American spy planes took several photos like these, which showed Soviet missile installations in Cuba. © Getty Images. Aerial view of a military facility with labels identifying launch position, missile-ready tents, and missile erectors. American spy planes took several photos like these, which showed Soviet missile installations in Cuba. © Getty Images. The crisis was a wake-up call, to put it mildly, alerting the world to the danger and volatility of the arms race. In 1963, the American, Soviet, and British governments signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which banned atmospheric tests. In 1968, the nuclear powers signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty sought to prevent the proliferation (spread) of nuclear weapons technology to new countries. Dozens of other countries soon followed. As of 2020, 190 countries are party to the treaty. These agreements limited the spread of nuclear weapons, but they failed to totally contain it. Britain, Israel, France, and China developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. India tested its first weapon in 1974, alarming neighboring Pakistan. In 1998, Pakistan tested its own nuclear weapon. North Korea tested its first in 2006. Echoing MAD, nations like Iran and North Korea argue that they have a right to nuclear weapons capability, which deters foreign intervention. Chart with color coded bubbles, lines, and text showing countries that have detonated nuclear weapons, and where and when they have occurred. Chart showing that for all nations with nuclear capability, the inventory went up from 1945 to 1985, and has declined ever since.A map and chart from Our World in Data. The map shows the location of all known nuclear explosions and the country responsible since 1945. The chart shows the number of nuclear warheads controlled by each nuclear power. Notice the decline in warheads after the end of the Cold War. By Our World in Data. Top, Bottom. Chart showing that for all nations with nuclear capability, the inventory went up from 1945 to 1985, and has declined ever since. A map and chart from Our World in Data. The map shows the location of all known nuclear explosions and the country responsible since 1945. The chart shows the number of nuclear warheads controlled by each nuclear power. Notice the decline in warheads after the end of the Cold War. By Our World in Data. Top, Bottom. A race to the stars The arms race also helped launch the space race, as the superpowers competed for dominance in space. Sending rockets into space with satellites attached demonstrated the capability to do the same with nuclear warheads. In 1957 the Soviets shocked the world by sending the first satellite—Sputnik—into space. The United States responded by creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and launching their own satellite in 1958. The Soviets continued to demonstrate their advantage by launching the first animal (a dog in 1957), the first man (1961), and the first woman (1963) into space. Color photo of a cute dog inside an unusual apparatus made of metal and cushions.Laika, the first dog in space, in the Sputnik 2 capsule. © Getty Images. Color photo of a cute dog inside an unusual apparatus made of metal and cushions. Laika, the first dog in space, in the Sputnik 2 capsule. © Getty Images. The Soviet dominance in the early years of the space race helped create the perception that there was a “missile gap” between the US and USSR. In truth, no gap existed; the Americans had as many as four times more missiles than the Soviets in the early 1960s. The public perception, however, was that the US was behind. In 1961, President Kennedy promised to send a man to the moon before the end of the 1960s. After Kennedy’s promise, the space race became a matter of national pride and security, and the government directed unprecedented resources at making his promise a reality. In 1969, three American astronauts landed on the moon. The Americans and Soviets both used their space programs as propaganda—evidence that their nations were pioneering new technologies that would propel them past their enemy and prove the superiority of the capitalist or communist ideology. Racing against ourselves The space race began as a part of the arms race, but with a pretty different tone. This race to explore the stars demonstrated the potential heights that human ingenuity could achieve, rather than the depths of depravity to which it might descend. In 1977, NASA launched the Voyager spacecraft.2^22squared Voyager carries two golden records. These records are humanity’s message-in-a-bottle to the stars, containing information compiled by a group of American scholars led by Carl Sagan. To represent our species, they chose neither political propaganda nor boasts of American nuclear might, but rather evidence of human cultural and scientific achievements. The records hold greetings in 55 languages—including Russian—alongside 27 songs from around the world—including songs from Bulgaria (a Warsaw Pact nation) and two Soviet Republics. The records are etched with the words “to the makers of music—all worlds, all times.” In a climate of Cold War rivalry and nuclear uncertainty, space exploration offered inspiration and, possibly, the hope for a better future. We started this article with a quote from a general describing the terrifying destructive capacity of the first nuclear weapon. Let’s conclude with President Jimmy Carter’s note to extraterrestrials on the Voyager records. Carter didn’t seek alien support against the Soviet Union. He provided a message about our common humanity and aspirations: “This Voyager spacecraft was constructed by the United States of America. We are a community of 240 million human beings among the more than 4 billion who inhabit the planet Earth. We human beings are still divided into nation states, but these states are rapidly becoming a single global civilization… This is a present from a small distant world, a token of our sounds, our science, our images, our music, our thoughts, and our feelings. We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope someday, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of galactic civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe.” Photo of two gold-plated copper disks.The Voyager records. The records were manufactured for durability. The cover (left) provides instructions for decoding the information contained on the records. NASA. Public domain. Photo of two gold-plated copper disks. The Voyager records. The records were manufactured for durability. The cover (left) provides instructions for decoding the information contained on the records. NASA. Public domain. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in history from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a research associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attribution]

Connecting Decolonization in Africa and the US Civil Rights Movement By Naaborko Sackeyfio-Lenoch African Americans and Africans created links to support each other in the struggles against colonialism and racial oppression. Liberation and inspiration The civil rights movement in the United States was not just a few brief events. It included the centuries-long struggles of African Americans for civil liberties and racial equality. Those efforts reached a peak in the 1950s and 1960s. Meanwhile, decolonization was developing across many territories on the African continent. Africans were fighting to gain freedom and independence from European colonial rule. The two struggles mirrored each other. Many Africans and many African Americans in this period embraced the idea that Africans and their descendants in other parts of the world had shared histories of racial oppression and oppression. Those historical bonds produced a spirit of racial solidarity. In 1957, Ghana was established as the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to gain independence from British colonial rule. Naturally, the West African nation’s independence served as a beacon for Black freedom across the African continent and the African diaspora. (A diaspora is a group of people who have been dispersed to places outside of their homeland.) It inspired African Americans and motivated their efforts in the civil rights movement. In fact, African Americans’ relationships with Africa had been shifting since the 1930s and 1940s. However, the 1950s and 1960s would bring a watershed moment. The North African nations of Egypt and Sudan gained independence in 1952 and 1956, respectively, before sub-Saharan African countries. Ghana gained independence the following year, as did Nigeria in 1960 and Tanzania in 1961. With these exciting developments, African Americans began to see their struggle for racial liberation in more international terms. They connected their own fight for civil rights in the United States with the independence movements that were sweeping Africa and other parts of the world. Each victorious rebellion against colonialism in Africa directly influenced the civil rights movement. Each seemed to guarantee the future successes of the civil rights movement. Thus, the collapse of colonialism across the African continent brought together the plight of Africans and African Americans. Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah standing beside President John F. Kennedy, 1961. Public domain. Nkrumah meeting Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, 1965. Public domain. African diaspora visions: Kwame Nkrumah, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X Many of the leaders of independent African nations were inspired by the common struggles of their brethren in other parts of the world, particularly the United States. Several Africans who would become leaders of independent African States had studied in the United States at historically Black colleges and universities in the 1930s and 1940s. Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first prime minister, was among them. During his studies at Lincoln University, Nkrumah’s political activism and experiences in Harlem and other communities strengthened his understanding of the oppressive conditions experienced by African Americans. Nkrumah came to view the condition of African Americans as part of the larger African diaspora and global human rights battle. He called for Pan-African unity—the unity of people of African descent everywhere—through his activism in the United States and the United Kingdom. He returned home in 1947 and became the central figure in the fight for his country’s independence. By the early 1950s, Kwame Nkrumah and his political party—the Convention People’s Party—were challenging British colonial masters, paving the way for the independence in 1957. Kwame Nkrumah invited many African Americans to join Ghana’s independence celebrations. When Martin Luther King Jr. and several other African American leaders made the pilgrimage to Ghana, the country’s independence took on greater significance for the civil rights movement. King was, of course, a central figure and spokesperson for the civil rights movement in the United States. He championed the philosophy of non-violent resistance against racial oppression, an approach that Kwame Nkrumah also embraced. The celebrations strengthened his belief that the roots of racism in America and the roots of political oppression in Africa were both planted in European colonialism. He understood that Ghana’s independence would provide inspiration for oppressed people around the world. King and other leaders left Ghana with a renewed sense of pride that revitalized their commitment to the struggles in America. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. being arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for “loitering,” September 1958. Public domain. El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, more popularly known as Malcolm X, was a leader in the Black Nationalist Movement and the Nation of Islam in the United States. Malcom X embarked on a hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca in 1964. This, and his visits to several other African countries including Ghana, informed his views about global Black struggles. In Ghana, he addressed the Ghanaian Parliament. His speech connected the suffering of African Americans with those on the African continent. Malcolm X met with Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah where they discussed a Pan-African vision for Africans and the African diaspora. Malcolm X was also building a case that the United States was violating human rights through its treatment of African Americans. He worked to get African support for this case. Together, Kwame Nkrumah and Malcolm X were central in reaffirming the links between Ghana and African Americans. Malcolm X. Public domain. African Americans in Ghana: Politics, identity and nation-building The desire to repatriate—to move back—to Africa held special meaning for African Americans. This was partly due to Kwame Nkrumah’s visit to Harlem and several other cities in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Nkrumah invited African Americans to come “home” to assist Ghana in building their new nation-state. They could connect with their African brethren and to re-establish their cultural heritage. The unity that Nkrumah called for inspired many African Americans to return to Ghana. The country also offered refuge for Black people who were disillusioned with America’s racial problems. The gains of the civil rights movement during the mid-1950s to mid-1960s certainly had not ended the structural racism and inequality in all arenas of American life. Many African American who moved to Ghana expressed that they were looking to experience racial freedom. They also generally believed that the struggles at home and abroad were intertwined. The community of African Americans who returned to Ghana contributed a broad range of skills and talents. They included medical professionals, lawyers, teachers, librarians, artists, writers, intellectuals, and engineers. Some African Americans returned as spouses of Africans who had studied in the United States. Others took on positions in the civil service and established various business ventures in Ghana. Prominent individuals such as W.E. B. Dubois and his wife, Shirley Graham Dubois; Maya Angelou; Julian Mayfield; Tom Feelings; and many other African Americans moved to Ghana as political exiles from the United States. Ghanaians embraced the African American community, offering recognition and hospitality despite some cultural and linguistic differences. As they worked to integrate into Ghanaian society, these African Americans remained connected with the civil rights movement. For instance, they staged a demonstration at the American embassy in the Ghanaian capital city of Accra to coincide with the historic March on Washington in August 1963. The demonstrators carried posters that linked their own struggle to the African revolution, as well as Asian and Latin American freedom movements. Many of these posters criticized US foreign policy in those regions. Members of this African American community in Ghana also created organizations such as the African Descendants Association Foundation and Operation Crossroads Africa. These organizations advanced linkages across countries by providing opportunities for travel to and from Africa. They also shared information about current events and the plight of both groups. Nkrumah was overthrown in 1966, and the Ghanaian government abandoned his pan-African ideals. However, political instability did not destabilize these connections, which remain in place to this day. Decolonization, the civil rights movement, and the Black nationalist movement of the late 1960s and 1970s linked African Americans and the African continent. Those links paved the way for continued cultural connections between African Americans and the events in Africa, raising the self-worth of Black people globally. African Americans recognized the magnitude of those revolutionary energies. Many now sought to align themselves with Africans and their struggle against European domination. Into the 21st century Two decades into the twenty-first century, as the United States reckons with its history of racism and police violence against African Americans, African nations have joined global efforts to denounce American racism. In particular, Ghanaian leaders have renewed their historical expressions of solidarity with the plight of African Americans. In 2020, the death of George Floyd sparked national and global protests of the killing of unarmed African American men and women. The President of Ghana, Nana Akufo-Addo sent his nation’s national cloth—Kente—to the Floyd family. In 2019, a record number of African Americans returned to Ghana to mark the date four hundred years earlier when the first slave ship landed in Virginia. As part of a public campaign during this “Year of Return,” the Ghanaian government negotiated to secure several hundred acres of land for African Americans who wish to return, offering pathways to residency and citizenship. The country welcomed African Americans to the country’s shores, reminding them that they are kin, ‘brothers and sisters’ who can rebuild successful livelihoods in Ghana. Author bio Naaborko Sackeyfio-Lenoch is Associate Professor of African History at Dartmouth College. Her research focuses on 20th century Ghana and West African history. She is author of The Politics of Chieftaincy: Authority and Property in Colonial Ghana: 1920–1950. She has written articles on Ghanaian politics during the colonial and independence era. She is currently working on a book about Ghana’s internationalism, and the role the country played in the global and cultural politics of the 1960s–1990s. [Sources and attribution]

The Course of the First World War By Trevor R. Getz The First World War began with plans for rapid victories. It degenerated into a stalemate of mud and blood that lasted four long years. An unimagined tragedy The First World War (1914–1918) was an unimagined tragedy. Very few people in Europe, or around the world, really understood how industrialization would change warfare. Only the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) a decade earlier offered any glimpse of what mechanized weapons could do to both sides. Most of the main combatants in the First World War—Britain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and later Italy and the United States—were entering a new and much deadlier battleground. War plans More than any previous conflict, the First World War was a war for which each country thought they were well prepared. Sure, ancient and medieval generals planned the movement of their armies before battle, but usually only once wars began. The First World War had been planned out and war-gamed by generals for decades prior in some countries. Most military leaders grasped that the pace of warfare had changed, and that railroads were a game-changer that would make everything happen faster. This meant that in order to get an advantage, or to get anywhere first, plans had to be in place and had to be carefully followed. European alliances, 1914. From the West Point US Military Academy. Fair use. The most important plan in this war was the Schlieffen Plan, a German conception first proposed in 1891. It was based on the belief that there would be a war between Germany on the one hand and both Russia and France on the other. The planners could see that fighting both opponents at once, on two sides of Germany, was really risky. But they also saw that France, with its shorter distances and more modern railways, could get an army to Germany before Russia could. Vast, under-industrialized Russia would take time to mobilize. So, the Germans devised a plan to rapidly invade France, knock them out of the war first, and then turn around and fight Russia. The only problem was that the fastest way to knock out France was to go through Belgium, and Britain had promised to protect Belgium. But German planners hoped the British wouldn’t really come in to defend this tiny country. The Schlieffen Plan went into operation almost immediately when the war began. The conflict started, of course, as a result of a crisis following Gavrilo Princip’s assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914. This led to the Austro-Hungarian Empire declaring war on Serbia, and Russia coming in on Serbia’s side. Germany had to join their Austro-Hungarian allies in the war against Russia and, just as the Schlieffen Plan predicted, France came in on the side of their Russian allies. From mobility to trenches on the western front The speed of mobilization meant that the first big battles of the war would be fought in the west, where the German army followed the Schlieffen Plan and invaded Belgium and France. On August 14, battles erupted along the Franco-German frontier. The French were pushed back as the well-designed Schlieffen Plan went into effect. Unfortunately for the Germans, the decision to invade Belgium did bring Britain into the war, and British forces joined the French, putting into effect the alliance known as the Triple Entente1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. All along the Western Front, armies made up of British, Belgian, and French soldiers were slowly pushed back towards the French capital of Paris. Too slowly, it turns out. French reinforcements were rushed to the front and, by September 5, were pushing back in a vast counterattack known as the Battle of the Marne. Schlieffen Plan (in red) and the French counter-attack (in blue) of 1914. From the US Military Academy, public domain. As the Germans retreated from around Paris, however, the nature of the conflict began to change. It became clear that defenders had a big advantage over attackers, especially when they were entrenched, meaning dug into the ground. Modern weapons, especially machine guns, could put out vast amounts of bullets very quickly. Attacking—especially across open ground—now meant increased casualties for the attackers. The only way to overcome a well-placed defense was with artillery firing huge shells. But defenders who dug into the ground, building trenches, were safer against artillery. Slowly the whole battlefront in the west became a series of trenches leading from Switzerland to the sea. The war beyond the Western Front While the Western Front was becoming bogged down, the mighty Russian Empire finally got its armies to the front lines. At first, the huge Russian armies were pretty effective against the Austro-Hungarian forces. Together with their allies in Serbia, they defeated the Austro-Hungarians in several small battles. However, the two Russian armies facing the Germans were divided in part because of bad communications and in part because their generals hated each other. At the end of August 1914, one army was surrounded by German forces at Tannenberg and forced to surrender. The Russians had been dealt a huge blow, but they remained in the war. Meanwhile, new countries had joined the war. Two of the most important were the Ottoman Empire and Italy. The Ottomans entered the war on the German and Austro-Hungarian side, forming the Central Powers. They hoped that they could reclaim territory lost to Russia in previous wars. However, their first attacks into Russia—via the Caucasus Mountains—were not successful, and they soon found themselves embroiled in battles against British forces in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Italy, similarly, entered the war hoping to win back territory—land that the Austro-Hungarian Empire claimed. They, too, found their first attacks unsuccessful and soon bogged down into a slow, difficult war in the Alps mountains. Meanwhile, the war was expanding far beyond Europe. Japan entered the conflict on the side of its ally, Great Britain, within the first week of the war. Their modern navy quickly conquered German colonies in China (in Qingdao, or Tsingtao) and the Pacific (Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall Islands). In Africa, meanwhile, the German colonies were also under attack. British and French forces quickly conquered German Togo and Cameroon in West Africa, while British South African forces occupied German South-West Africa in 1915. The German armies in East Africa held out until the end of the war. In almost all cases, most of the fighting was actually done by African soldiers. Attempting to break the stalemate By the middle of 1915, the war was stuck in a vast quagmire. In most places, modern weapons meant that there could be little movement, and the enormousness of the armies and total mobilization of economies meant that it was difficult to turn even a victorious battle into a major event. Along the Western Front, a series of small attacks inevitably ended in terrible failure, and the armies settled down in exhaustion. The addition of gas weapons made movement even more difficult, and the armies built better and better bunkers and defenses to stop attackers. One strategy was to make the attacks even bigger. The result was just more casualties. Beginning in February 1916, for example, the Germans tried to grind the whole French army to death by attacking the fortified line at Verdun. They wanted a long battle, forcing the French to send unit after unit replacing defeated soldiers. In the end, the French lost about 400,000 to death or injury in this battle, and the Germans about 350,000. In July 1916, a largely British force tried to break the German lines at the Battle of the Somme. They suffered more than half a million casualties, including 150,000 dead. German losses were similar. Map of the Western Front, 1916, showing the location of the Battles of Verdun and the Somme, and others. Note how little ground was gained in these dreadful battles. Public domain. There were also attempts to provoke a naval battle that could shift the balance of the war. The German fleet sailed out to challenge the British Home Fleet at the end of May 1916. The resulting Battle of Jutland didn’t resolve anything. Both fleets remained in existence, even though the German fleet didn’t sail out again during the war. Another strategy for breaking the stalemate was to knock one opponent out of the war. The British, for example, thought they could break down the Ottoman Empire by landing near and occupying the capital of Constantinople (later Istanbul). They sent a force—mainly Australian and New Zealand troops—to land at a place called Gallipoli, along the coast near Constantinople. This attack also failed, and left 250,000 casualties on either side. British map from the First World War showing the location of the Gallipoli campaign and the gateway to Constantinople (today Istanbul). Public domain. Both sides also tried to damage each other decisively through economic means. The British fleet tried to stop any goods from going into Germany, and largely succeeded, although only very slowly. The Germans tried to use U-boats (submarines) to strangle the British economy. This strategy was effective for a while, but convoys and new technology slowly diminished the kill rate of the U-boats. Russia and the Americans Eventually, the Central Powers did manage to knock one opponent out, perhaps unwittingly. Russian armies had been suffering some bad defeats throughout 1916, and the Russian economy was in shambles because of the war. This helped to create the conditions for the Russian Revolution. At first, the revolutionary government stayed in the war on the side of the Triple Entente, but after the communist Bolsheviks took power, they bowed out. This should have radically transformed the conflict to the benefit of Germany and its allies. However, just as the Russians were leaving, the United States was entering the conflict. The main cause was German unrestricted submarine warfare, which affected American shipping, although German attempts to win Mexican allies and other issues also helped convince the United States to declare war. American troops began to arrive in the summer of 1917. The American troops were inexperienced, but given the exhaustion of every other army in the war they injected a needed morale boost in their British, French, and Belgian allies. By late 1918, then, things were beginning to look bad for the Central Powers. Their armies were in retreat almost everywhere. Britain and local allies pushed the Ottoman forces out of Mesopotamia and Arabia in September. The Austro-Hungarians were defeated by the Italians in an important battle in June, and within a few months many of their subject peoples—Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Poles—were declaring independence. German soldiers held on as best they could, but faced terrible economic conditions at home as the British blockade really tightened. In late October, parts of the navy began to revolt, and a new government came to power, determined to end the war. On November 11, an armistice was signed between the victorious Triple Entente and their allies on the one hand, and Germany on the other. Conclusions A single article, in 1800 words or so, tells the history of the First World War like a rapid whirlwind. In fact, it was a terrible four-year slog of mud and death. All of the plans for quick victories looked like a bad joke from the viewpoint of November 1918. Everyone hoped it would be “the war to end all wars.” Of course, it was not. [Notes] Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the author, what was the basic difference at the heart of the Cold War conflict?What does this author identify as the three main features of the Cold War?Why did Stalin want to expand Soviet influence in Eastern Europe?What was the policy of containment and what conflicts does the author use as an example of this policy? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The Cold War was a conflict that was all about methods of production and distribution that divided communities across the world along communist and capitalist lines. How would you describe the Cold War through each course frame? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Cold War: An Overview A photograph of a military checkpoint. There is a sign that reads “You are leaving the American sector”, with several people standing in front of it. The checkpoint is a booth, with two military police cars parked in front of it. By Burleigh Hendrickson The aftermath of World War Two shifted the global balance of power and created a bi-polar world led by two competing superpowers: The United States (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). We call this global competition the Cold War. What was the Cold War? The destruction of World War II reduced many European cities to rubble. It also led world leaders to seek new ways to protect against future attacks. While the United States and the Soviet Union had worked together to defeat the Axis powers, their partnership quickly turned to a 50-year-long confrontation. They disagreed about how to rebuild Europe, and their efforts to increase their own security often conflicted. This fierce conflict is called the "Cold War" since the two superpowers never directly engaged in combat ("hot war"). Instead, they increased their military capabilities, tried to expand their global influence, and undermined the other's way of life in the eyes of the world. While the United States believed in a capitalist system of free markets and multiple political parties, the Soviet Union was founded on a communist system controlled by a centralized state and a single political party. The Cold War came down to some basic differences between the world-views of the United States and the Soviet Union. Communist societies believed in redistributing wealth (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) and promoted workers and state-run economies. These resulted in low unemployment rates but sometimes led to the unequal distribution of consumer goods. They also viewed organized religion as dangerous. The US capitalist system let free markets determine the production and distribution of goods, and promoted freedom of religion. This led to more productivity but often created massive economic inequalities. Both sides also used propaganda to paint a negative picture of their enemies. From 1945 until the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, these two nations competed for global influence in the areas of military, economics, politics, and even culture. Three key features defined the Cold War: 1) the threat of nuclear war, 2) competition over the allegiance (loyalty) of newly independent nations, and 3) the military and economic support of each other's enemies around the world. The United States showed its global military dominance when it dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. This act prompted the USSR to seek nuclear technology to discourage American aggression. The United States held other advantages as well. Having entered World War II late in the conflict, it lost far fewer soldiers and civilians. The USSR lost 8-10 million soldiers (25 million including civilians) yet the United States lost 300,000 in the war. While the Soviet Union faced a devastating invasion, most of the United States emerged unscathed from the war. Finally, the US economy expanded during the war as it made profits selling weapons and supplies to the Allied forces. Map shows a region divided into two. From Portugal to West Germany is the Western NATO area, and from East Germany over through the Soviet Union are the Warsaw Pact areas. Turkey and Greece, below Bulgaria, are part of the NATO alliance. Map of Cold War military alliances. The Eastern Soviet “Warsaw Pact” areas are in red, and the Western NATO areas are in blue. CC BY-SA 3.0 Map shows a region divided into two. From Portugal to West Germany is the Western NATO area, and from East Germany over through the Soviet Union are the Warsaw Pact areas. Turkey and Greece, below Bulgaria, are part of the NATO alliance. Map of Cold War military alliances. The Eastern Soviet “Warsaw Pact” areas are in red, and the Western NATO areas are in blue. CC BY-SA 3.0 A map shows the same region as above, this time with the “iron curtain” marked on the map, dividing East and West Germany and Bulgaria from Greece and Turkey. A small dot shows the divide between East and West Berlin.Map of Iron Curtain dividing the Eastern Bloc and USSR from Western Europe. The black dot in Germany represents the division between East and West Berlin. By Semhur, CC BY-SA 4.0. A map shows the same region as above, this time with the “iron curtain” marked on the map, dividing East and West Germany and Bulgaria from Greece and Turkey. A small dot shows the divide between East and West Berlin. Map of Iron Curtain dividing the Eastern Bloc and USSR from Western Europe. The black dot in Germany represents the division between East and West Berlin. By Semhur, CC BY-SA 4.0. A divided Europe After a long history of enemy invasions, Soviet leader Josef Stalin wanted to expand its territory and build a buffer between the Soviet Union and Europe. He also wanted control in Central and Eastern European countries that the Soviets had helped liberate. As a result, Stalin quickly established strong communist parties that took power in Central and Eastern Europe (the Eastern Bloc). They took orders from the USSR. Meanwhile, the United States provided over $12 billion in aid for rebuilding Western European nations who agreed to open trade. This divided Europe, breaking trade networks and splitting communities between East and West. These economic divisions spread to separate military alliances in each zone. This further divided Europe along an imaginary line called the Iron Curtain. Travel and cultural exchange across the Iron Curtain became increasingly difficult. It separated previously connected communities and created new ones living either under a communist or capitalist system. Germany became a Cold War battleground. East and West Germany had separate governments and capital cities. Families were separated based solely on where the lines were drawn. The city of Berlin became a microcosm (small-scale representation) of the Cold War, with British, French, and Americans controlling West Berlin while the Soviets controlled East Berlin. To prevent defections (people leaving one state for another), the communists built the Berlin Wall in 1961. It divided the city. They set up checkpoints to control border crossings. At some points, guards even had orders to kill unarmed East Germans seeking to cross illegally. The wall became the most important symbol of the Cold War. A photo of four people, standing in front of a stone wall that divided East and West Berlin. Two of the people lift their babies up above the wall. West Berliners lift up babies to meet family members living across the wall in East Berlin. By the CIA, public domain A photo of four people, standing in front of a stone wall that divided East and West Berlin. Two of the people lift their babies up above the wall. West Berliners lift up babies to meet family members living across the wall in East Berlin. By the CIA, public domain The Cold War heats up around the world The Cold War started in Europe. From 1945 to 1953, the USSR expanded its influence by creating the Eastern Bloc across states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. Stalin set up puppet communist governments that he could control. He repressed anyone who resisted. The United States likewise began to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations where it feared communist regimes would gain control. This became known as a policy of containment. A comic drawing of two puppets on a stage. On one side, a man reads from a book that reads “peace on earth” in front of a Vienna background; on the other side, a puppet raises a sword and a torch in front of a set that reads “Korea” and “Indo China”. The caption reads “Left hand, right hand”. A 1962 comic showing Stalin controlling puppets in Europe and Asia. By Manhhai, CC BY 2.0 A comic drawing of two puppets on a stage. On one side, a man reads from a book that reads “peace on earth” in front of a Vienna background; on the other side, a puppet raises a sword and a torch in front of a set that reads “Korea” and “Indo China”. The caption reads “Left hand, right hand”. A 1962 comic showing Stalin controlling puppets in Europe and Asia. By Manhhai, CC BY 2.0 In the 1950s, competition had spread to the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America, with each side trying to establish control. By the 1960s, the Cold War reached Africa. Many former colonies achieved independence from European empires (decolonization). These new nations sided with the Americans or Soviets to receive economic and military aid. Both superpowers supported dictatorships that came to power through violence and repressed their societies—all to gain an edge in the global Cold War. Some of the most important Cold War conflicts took place in Asia. Communists took power in China in 1949, and the Americans feared other countries would soon follow. In 1953, Korea had been divided into two zones, with a communist government in the North and an American-leaning government in the South. To contain the spread of communism to South Korea, the US sent troops. The Chinese responded by sending their own troops to the border. The war killed nearly 5 million people but ended in a stalemate, leaving a divided Korea that remains today. A photo of two men protesting: One man wears a sign that reads “US Imperialism” and is holding up the arms of another man, wearing a sign that reads “Saigon puppet”, with puppet strings.Two Americans protest the Vietnam War in Kansas, 1967. Public domain A photo of two men protesting: One man wears a sign that reads “US Imperialism” and is holding up the arms of another man, wearing a sign that reads “Saigon puppet”, with puppet strings. Two Americans protest the Vietnam War in Kansas, 1967. Public domain Perhaps no conflict illustrates the policy of containment better than Vietnam. Like Korea, Vietnam was divided into a communist north and pro-West south. To contain the communist north, the United States invaded in the 1960s. The Soviet Union sent money and weapons to the communist forces. By 1975, with the help of the Soviets and China, a small, poor nation defeated the strongest military superpower in the world. Over 58,000 Americans died in the conflict. The war divided Americans who were for or against the war. The US intervention in Vietnam exposed the hypocrisy of US policies that claimed to promote self-determination, and it inspired other small nations to determine their own futures. After the Vietnam War, Cold War tension briefly decreased. The Americans' defeat in Vietnam, the threat of nuclear war, and new Soviet leadership led to open discussions between the sides. But much like the Americans had in Vietnam, the USSR intervened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It wanted to ensure the victory of a communist-leaning group and sent troops to assist them. Just as North Vietnam received aid and military assistance from the USSR, the United States backed Soviet enemies in Afghanistan with money and weapons. Ultimately, the USSR was equally unsuccessful, and US-backed forces emerged victorious. After much infighting, Islamic extremists called the Taliban claimed power in the region, thanks to American aid. The end of the Cold War The Cold War finally ended in the 1990s. The USSR could no longer keep up with US military spending. Meanwhile, economic problems in the Eastern Bloc meant that goods were in short supply. To keep citizens from revolting, the new Soviet leader, Mikhael Gorbachev, proposed reforms to stimulate communist economies. The economic reforms were known as perestroika, or "restructuring." He also relaxed restrictions on freedom of expression, a policy called glasnost, or "openness." These reforms were too little too late. In 1989, the most iconic symbol of the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall, which divided the German city, was torn down by Germans on both sides seeking to unify Germany. Similar waves of anti-communism spread throughout the Eastern Bloc. The end of the Cold War was marked by the disintegration of the USSR into over a dozen independent nations. A crowd of protestors stand next to and on top of a heavily graffiti-ed wall.East and West Germans call for unification of the country and the removal of the Berlin Wall in the fall of 1989. By Sue Ream, CC BY 3.0. A crowd of protestors stand next to and on top of a heavily graffiti-ed wall. East and West Germans call for unification of the country and the removal of the Berlin Wall in the fall of 1989. By Sue Ream, CC BY 3.0. Fear of a nuclear war likely prevented direct combat between the Americans and the Soviets. Though they did not engage in all-out warfare, the two superpowers supported many of each other's enemies in combat. They created a bi-polar system of global power that forced other nations to choose sides and ripped communities apart. The economic troubles created by the Soviet war in Afghanistan left the USSR unable to maintain control of the Eastern Bloc. Once self-determination was possible in the 1990s, many Eastern European countries chose a different path. They elected non-communist parties and joined the European Union. Outside of Europe, communists in places like Cuba and China have remained in power while other nations removed pro-US dictators. Whichever path nations have chosen since the collapse of the USSR, the Cold War has left a major imprint. Author bio Burleigh Hendrickson is a Visiting Assistant Professor in French and Francophone Studies at Dickinson College. He holds a PhD in world history from Northeastern University, and taught survey courses in the history of globalization at Boston College. He has published several peer-reviewed articles on transnational political activism in the Francophone world. [Sources and attributions]

Art and the World Wars By Trevor Getz If art is a mirror held to society, what did people see in the era of the world wars, and how did it shape what they created? Introduction What is “art”? There’s no single definition, but some say it is a mirror we hold up to society that helps us understand our ever-changing world. The two world wars of the twentieth century were enormous, dramatic, terrible periods, and one of the ways people reacted to them was through creating art. Let’s look at some of those creations and consider what they tell us about the societies that went through, and emerged from, the world wars. Art and the First World War The First World War transformed the artistic world. Some of the art it produced, especially in the beginning, was used to excite and mobilize people for war. A great example is Australian artist Norman Lindsay’s posters, which tried to recruit men to the Australian forces fighting for Great Britain. Posters like Fight or Wait were both realistic and expressive, meant to evoke an emotional response that made you want to fight. Norman Lindsay, Fight or Wait, 1914-1918 (disputed). Public domain. Once the war was under way, many states commissioned artists to go the front lines to draw the battlefields. This kind of art had a long tradition in Europe, but was difficult given the new realities of industrialized warfare. Instead of romantic images of triumphant battles, a lot of art that emerged from the front lines of this war detailed the terrible existence and shortened lives of the combatants. The artist George Harding, sent to accompany the American forces in France, sketched and painted the devastating scenes he witnessed. Traffic to Mont St. Pere, for example, depicts the destruction of a town by artillery and airplanes. Traffic to Mont St. Pere, by George Harding, 1918. Public domain. Then there is art that we read, rather than view. Poems about the First World War mourned the loss of life, destruction of property, and death of innocence. Some of these poets had fought, and often died, on the front lines, like Britain’s Siegfried Sassoon, Russia’s Ilya Ehrenburg, Germany’s Gerrit Engelke, and France’s Louis Pergaud. Others were women who felt the agonizing loss of a generation and wrote about it, like Ada Harrison, who wrote New Year, 1916: Those that go down into silence …. There is no silence in their going down, Although their grave-turf is not wet with tears, Although Grief passes by them, and Renown Has garnered them no glory for the years. The cloud of war moves on, and men forget That empires fall. We go our heedless ways. Unknowing still, uncaring still, and yet The very dust is clamorous with their praise. After the war, much of the world continued to grapple with the years of death and destruction. There was a sort of post-traumatic reaction in many societies. It affected nearly everyone, but especially the many millions of war veterans. Art reflected this struggle and was a way of coming to terms with the meaning and causes of the war. One particular school of art, the Dada movement, argued that the war was a result of the rise of science and emphasis on reason, and that had diminished humanism and emotion. Dada art was meant to offend and ask hard questions. It ignored the often rigid rules of art and embraced irrationality, as can be seen in Hannah Höch’s Cut with the Kitchen Knife. Hannah Höch, Cut with the Kitchen Knife, 1919. Public domain. Alongside Dada, the Surrealist movement emerged, beginning in Paris at the end of the war. This type of art conveyed ideas, thoughts, and feelings, leaving “reality” behind. Surrealists generally felt that the First World War had been caused by people wanting to obey and conform, and its artists and poets stressed non-conformity. They fused together items and elements that others would not have thought belonged together, and also raised questions about whether the world we think we see is what really exists. A great example is René Magritte’s The Treachery of Images. It is an image of a pipe above the words Ceci n’est pas une pipe. (“This is not a pipe.”) And Magritte was right: it’s not a pipe, just a picture of a pipe. But he may also be suggesting that what we think we are experiencing in the world is just a representation or illusion of reality. René Magritte, La Trahison des Images, 1928-1929. Fair use. Art and the Second World War The art of the period between the wars was therefore both rich and chaotic. But the rising tide of fascism, authoritarianism, and communism was an attempt to impose order on the world, at least in many countries. These ideologies saw surreal art as too uncontrollable and too “deviant”, and many leaders viewed it as a serious threat. In Germany, once the Nazi party came to power, a great deal of surrealistic or otherwise unapproved art was burned. Recognizing the power of art, authoritarian governments also produced it. They sponsored art celebrating modernity, organization, and obedience. One of the most important was probably Triumph of the Will, a film about Adolf Hitler made by German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl in 1935 – still in the early years of this art form. It was a two-hour propaganda piece meant to show how the German people should celebrate Adolf Hitler as a man of action. A 1934 movie poster of Triumph of the Will. Public domain. The war itself also led to an abundance of art. Some of it was overtly racist, like many anti-Japanese pieces in the United States. Other countries also created a great deal of propaganda in the territories they took over or were trying to take over. They hoped the art would convince populations to help them or to obey their rule. One great example is this Japanese leaflet from 1943. It is meant to convince Indian citizens not to join up to fight Japan, despite Britain, China, and the United States trying to drag them towards the conflict. Japanese Propaganda leaflet, 1943. Public domain. The war also saw the theft of many works of art. German forces, in particular, took art both from conquered countries and from groups, such as the Jewish population, whose property was stolen before they were murdered. After the war, many efforts were made to recover this art, but only some were successful. Post-war art In the United States and some other countries, the end of the war in 1945 transformed who could make art. Previously, it had not been a career many people could afford to pursue. But the GI Bill, which paid for veterans to go to university, vastly widened the talent pool for students of art and other disciplines. The “democratization” of art spawned many new types of creativity. Together with the rise of consumer culture, this created “pop art,” a movement that challenged people’s ideas of who art was for an who could make it. Just the wealthy few, as usual? Or could anyone be an artist now? Perhaps no other piece of art so deftly exemplifies this movement than Andy Warhol’s 32 Campbell’s Soup Cans, which made art from an everyday product. Can’t tell if it’s really art? That’s exactly what Warhol hoped you would think about! Andy Warhol, 32 Campbell’s Soup Cans, 1962. By Hu Totya, fair use. Meanwhile, in China, the victory of the Communist Party brought to power not only a new government but also a new idea about the purpose of art. Party Chairman Mao Zedong directed that art be “a powerful weapon for uniting and educating the people, fighting and destroying the enemy.” Art that was deemed not useful, especially European and US movements like Surrealism and pop art were outlawed. Historic, centuries-old Chinese art from earlier dynasties was even destroyed in the Cultural Revolution of the 60s and 70s. The only art endorsed by the government was very realistic, pro-communist, pro-government work like this painting. The Communist Party Mobilizes All Its Members to Practice Agriculture in Order to Fight for the Popularization of Dazhai County, China, undated but circa 1976. Public domain. Finally, as the end of the war laid the groundwork for decolonization, art aimed at liberation began to emerge around the world, both in colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean and in US society where Chicano muralism and Black Power art flourished. We will leave you with one example, Sudanese artist Ibrahim El Salahi’s The Arising. Ibrahim El Salahi, The Arising, undated. From the National Archives, 558994. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What is the other geological name for the Anthropocene?What does the graph “Human Influences on Global Temperature” (figure 2.1) illustrate?Using the same reference, compare the period between 1880 and 1940 and that between 1940 and 2020. What do you notice?What is the current rate of decline in the biodiversity of all sectors of the planet?What do Three Mile Island (US), Chernobyl (Ukraine), and Fukushima (Japan) have in common?According to the article, how long do many scientists believe we have left to address global climate change? How might we correct our ongoing impact on the environment? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does climate change influence human rights? Who is most affected by climate change?Are different perspectives on climate change helpful or harmful? Both? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Anthropocene A birds-eye photograph shows great, snow-ice lakes on brown land. By Cynthia Stokes Brown In 2000, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist suggested that humans have greatly altered the planet. The chemist, Paul Crutzen, believes we have brought on a new epoch. He named it the Anthropocene using Anthropo which is the Greek root for "human". The case for the Anthropocene For the first time in the history of life on Earth, a single species, humans, has gained the capacity to greatly change the entire biosphere. Geologists have worked out a system of naming large segments of Earth's time. Thousands of years are called "epochs." Tens of millions of years are "periods." Hundreds of millions of years are "eras." The longest measurements of time are called "eons." Geologists call our current epoch the Holocene. It started about 10,000 years ago, when temperatures stabilized after the last ice age. The word Holocene comes from Greek roots: holo meaning "whole" and cene meaning "new." Hence, Holocene means "wholly new." In 2000, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist suggested that we are in a new epoch—the Anthropocene. The chemist, Paul Crutzen, proposed that human domination has altered the planet greatly and thus brought on a new epoch. Anthropo is the Greek root for "human." The name Anthropocene has not been officially adopted, but many geologists have begun using it1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. But why should we care about this name change? This means that it's the first time scientists have seen one species, humans, having an impact that has greatly altered the planet. Unfortunately, these changes have been almost entirely negative. Evidence of change What kind of evidence could demonstrate that humans have begun to dominate and alter the life systems of Earth? The most prominent answer is by now a familiar one: climate change2^22squared. Driven by an average rise in temperatures around the world of about 1 degree Celsius, a number of serious effects are now occurring. Plants and animals are moving northward. Glaciers are melting. Storms and droughts are getting more severe. Weather patterns are changing and global temperatures are rising. Behind these weather patterns are changes in the Earth's atmosphere that scientists can track over geologic time. A tiny part of Earth's atmosphere is made up of "greenhouse gases." These gases hold in heat reflected from Earth and do not let it escape into space. One of these greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). During the past million years, CO2 ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm—due to processes not affected by humans. Since the beginning of human agriculture, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to the current (2017) level of 405 ppm3^33cubed. This rise happened much faster than ever before. It was mostly due to humans burning fossil fuels in the last 250 years. A scientist, wearing a cap and a red bandana, is kneeling down next to a deep crevice in a snowbank. He is collecting samples. A scientist collects core samples from an Alaskan glacier, Laku Glacier, Juneau. By United States Geological Survey, public domain. A scientist, wearing a cap and a red bandana, is kneeling down next to a deep crevice in a snowbank. He is collecting samples. A scientist collects core samples from an Alaskan glacier, Laku Glacier, Juneau. By United States Geological Survey, public domain. In order to keep our climate from devastatingly warming, leading scientists urge us to reduce the concentration of CO2 to 350 ppm. Because CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for thousands of years, the CO2 that has been put into the air in the 1900s continues to contribute to warming. If we are to curb that effect, scientists tell us that global emissions (release) of CO2 must be cut by 50 percent by 2030 and fall to net zero by the year 2050. However, from 2014-2016 worldwide emissions increased by 1.6 percent. In addition, the increase for 2018 was 2.7 percent. Emissions in both China and India rose by almost 5 percent and more than 6 percent respectively, reflecting the rate at which these countries' emissions continue to grow as they industrialize. The United States' emission increased by 2.5 percent. However, emissions in the European Union decreased by almost 1 percent. The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres issued a stark warning at the 24th annual U.N. climate conference in 2018 stating, "We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble with climate change…It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation. Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption" (Washington Post). You might think that natural changes in climate occur slowly and gradually, but it doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes, like at the end of the last ice age, change speeds up because of feedback cycles. For example, when glaciers at the poles melt, there is less area of whiteness to reflect some of the Sun's heat back into space. Instead, the heat is absorbed into the land and water, warming it and causing more melting of the glaciers, which then reflect even less heat. The feedback cycle continues. A graph shows the varying human influences and their effect on the global temperature. Land cover and aerosols have had a lessened impact on the global temperature over the last century, and greenhouse gases have had an exponentially increasing impact. Influences on global temperature, U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018, Figure 2.1. By National Climate Assessment. Public domain. A graph shows the varying human influences and their effect on the global temperature. Land cover and aerosols have had a lessened impact on the global temperature over the last century, and greenhouse gases have had an exponentially increasing impact. Influences on global temperature, U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018, Figure 2.1. By National Climate Assessment. Public domain. It's not only the atmosphere that has been changed by CO2 emissions. The chemistry of the oceans has changed as a significant amount of the CO2 in the air dissolves into the oceans. As more CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, it makes the water more acidic, endangering the life of creatures that form calcium shells that disintegrate under too much acid. Runoff from fertilizers and pesticides contributes as well. It causes strange accumulations of harmful algae, called blooms. Widespread overfishing threatens marine species worldwide. Our production and distribution of plastics is also affecting the oceans and the species that live in it. The effects of human use of fossil fuels in the creation of plastics is also a worrying concern. Both large and microscopic pieces of plastic as well as oil runoff and spills enter the waterways and become hazardous to life in our oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams. Photograph of a scuba diver under water, swimming above whitened coral reefs. Coral bleaching at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, February 2016. By The Ocean Agency/XL Catlin Seaview Survey/Richard Vevers, CC BY 2.0. Photograph of a scuba diver under water, swimming above whitened coral reefs. Coral bleaching at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, February 2016. By The Ocean Agency/XL Catlin Seaview Survey/Richard Vevers, CC BY 2.0. More than just sea life is at risk. The biodiversity of all sectors of the planet is declining faster than usual. Reports put the present rate of decline as between a hundred and a thousand times the normal rate. Up to half of all species face extinction in the twenty-first century. Many biologists believe the current extinction, which is occurring right now, will rank as one of Earth's six major ones. Another way that humans are changing Earth's systems lies in our ability to create artificial chemicals. These include drugs, pesticides, plastics, and synthetic fabrics. Earth is absorbing these chemicals, with unknown side effects. Nuclear energy is another powerful force that humans have developed. The buildup of radiation in the environment from nuclear bomb testing and use as well as from nuclear energy waste and accidents has affected the Earth's environment. The United States first tested and then used nuclear bombs as weapons of war in 1945. A number of nations have performed similar tests in their quest to obtain nuclear weapons. In addition, increased levels of radiation on Earth have resulted from nuclear power waste and fallout from nuclear disasters at Three Mile Island (US), Chernobyl (Ukraine), and Fukushima (Japan). Exposure to radiation can damage or mutate the cells of all living organisms. The evidence above comes from biologists and climate scientists. But geologists have a very specific way of determining historical periods. They look for evidence in the rocks, or at least in layers of mud that will become rock. And even in the mud they are finding evidence of environmental harm. Worldwide sediments contain radiation from atomic bomb testing in the 1960s. Similar evidence of chlorine from bomb testing and of mercury associated with the burning of coal also exists in ice-core samples. Environmental historians support the claims of geologists. Scholar John McNeill wrote an environmental history of the twentieth-century world called Something New Under the Sun. In it he asserts that "the human race, without intending anything of the sort, has undertaken a gigantic uncontrolled experiment on the Earth." Going forward There are differing opinions about what these changes might bring and how humans might be able to overcome them. James Lovelock, an English scientist, believes that humans are no longer able to control change. He believes the planet will be returned to some kind of equilibrium, which may not support much human life. According to Lovelock, the best we can do is try to adapt to the changes. Others believe humans are clever enough to find our way out of any tight spot. We can use our collective learning to create new ideas, new technologies, and new solutions. In fact, human communities have survived previous crises. Why can't we do it again? Geologists continue to debate other questions: When did the Anthropocene begin? How do we know when we have reached the critical point of human influence on the Earth? Just considering these questions has allowed scientists to examine contemporary change. Meanwhile, people have to face this decisive period in planetary history. Human decisions made in the near past and those made in the near future will determine the direction of life on our planet. A spacecraft, pictured outside of the planet Earth. The planet is blue and brown and the spacecraft is made up of an oval-shaped body with two rectangular-shaped “wings”.NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) launched in 2014 to study the levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. By NASA/JPL-Caltech, public domain. A spacecraft, pictured outside of the planet Earth. The planet is blue and brown and the spacecraft is made up of an oval-shaped body with two rectangular-shaped “wings”. NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) launched in 2014 to study the levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. By NASA/JPL-Caltech, public domain. Many leading scientists and journalists believe that we have at most 10 years to change our destructive behavior and to implement new technologies. Otherwise, humans could face a breakdown in our planet's life-support systems. It will take the commitment, innovation, and cooperation of a large portion of all humans on the planet to safely make these changes. [Notes] Author bio Cynthia Stokes Brown was an American educator-historian. Stokes Brown wrote Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present. Using the term big history, coined by David Christian at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, Stokes Brown told the whole story from the Big Bang to the present in simple, non-academic language to convey our common humanity and our connection to every other part of the natural world. [Sources and attributions]

The data exploration article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview – what do we have? This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what this chart is about and the information it contains. Pay attention to: Labels and titles. What is the title? How are the axes labeled? Is anything else on the chart labeled?Data representation. How many variables are there and what are they? What are the scales? What time period does the chart cover? Is the chart interactive?Data source. Where did the data for this chart come from? Do you trust it? Who created the chart? Second read: key ideas – what do we know? In this read, you will pay attention to the information that most helps you understand the chart and the information it is trying to convey. Pay attention to: Claim(s). What can you say about the data? What story does it tell? Can you make any claims about this data? Does it change when you zoom in compared to when you look at the data as a whole?Evidence. What data from the chart supports this story? Does this change if you change the scale or variables?Presentation. How does the way this chart is presented influence how you read it? Has the author selected certain variables or scales that change the conclusions that can be drawn? Is there anything missing from this chart? By the end of the second read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to Chart 1 and 2, when did the global population increase at the highest rate?According to Chart 1, if we lower the global growth rate of the human population over the next century, will the global population decline?Why do you think the makers of Chart 1 believe that the global population will continue to grow even if we slow the rate of growth? Do you agree?According to Chart 2, in what regions has the population growth rate decreased the most since 1950? Where has it increased the most?On Chart 2, if you select the Chart button at the bottom, you can see population growth rates as a line graph for individual countries and regions. Try comparing Africa and Europe. What do you notice? Do you agree with the predictions in the chart?According to Chart 3, which three countries had the largest population in 2015? Which will have the largest populations by the year 2100? When compared with the information in Chart 2 on population growth rates, what does this tell you about the relationship between total population and population growth rates?Do you trust the predictions in these charts? Do you think we can reliably predict what populations will look like in 100 years using data about the past? Why or why not? Third read: making connections – what does this tell us? The third reading is really about why the chart is important and what it can tell us about the past and help us think about the future. Pay attention to: Significance. Why does this matter? Does this impact me, and if so, how? How does it connect what is going on in the world right now? How does it relate to what was happening at the time it was created?Back to the future. How does this data compare to today? Based on what you now know, what are your thoughts on this phenomenon 25 years, 50 years, and 100 years from now? At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Why does this chart matter? What do these charts tell us about the future of human communities? What do they tell us about how we produce and consume resources? Can population predictions help us understand anything about global inequality in the future?Using these charts and a chart from a previous data exploration, make a new prediction about how human communities will change in your lifetime. What evidence from the charts supports your prediction? What evidence challenges it? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Future Population Growth Data Introduction By Max Roser, adapted by Mike Papritz and Eman M. Elshaikh There are a lot of us living on this planet. But, the rate of population growth has slowed in recent decades. Can data help us predict our population future? Population growth—past, present, and future Over the course of the last school year, you've probably noticed something about population on this planet: there are more of us here than there used to be. We know approximately how many people inhabit this planet today (around 7.7 billion in 2019). We have reasonably good estimates for the recent past (2 billion in 1928; 1 billion in 1803). But, the further back we go, the murkier the data gets. The same is true for the future—the further we travel forward in time, the less certain we can be about how many people there will be on Earth. For much of human history, the global population was much smaller than it currently is, and it grew at a relatively slow rate. But during the twentieth century, our global population quadrupled. Since then, population growth appears to be slowing down. Though our overall population has continued to rise, the rate of its increase started to decline in the 1960s. Today, the global population grows by about 1 percent each year. You can see these trends illustrated in Chart 1. Chart 1: Explore at: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-–-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100.png By Our World in Data, CC BY 4.0. Will these trends continue? That's a really important question. Population affects things like available space and resources, which are increasingly limited. The more people there are on Earth, the more food, fuel, space, and materials are needed to sustain them. Think of it this way: The number of people keeps changing, but the planet and the resources on it are a lot more fixed. That's a problem. That's part of the story. But there's more to it. Humans aren't just stomachs—they're also brains. As our population has grown, so has the pace of innovation in technologies and institutions that have allowed us to use our limited resources in new problem-solving ways. Our recent past has shown that more people can mean more food, new fuels, and more useful innovations. We just might be more brain than stomach. Predicting the future with data Whether you think population growth is a problem for the future or might provide solutions to our most pressing problems, it will be central to our future as a species on this planet. Scholars have spent a lot of time trying to predict what our population will look like in the next century. To understand where we might be headed, we need to know where we've been. As one example, explore the two maps below. Map 1 shows past data (1950–2015) about population growth rate by country. Map 2 uses past data, like that in Map 1, to make predictions about the future (2015–2100) of population growth by country. Note: While exploring these maps, you might see the phrase "medium variant" pop up. Don't worry too much about what it means—just think of it as the most likely scenario. Map 1: Explore at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates By Our World in Data, CC BY 4.0. Map 2: Explore at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/un-population-projection-medium-variant By Our World in Data, CC BY 4.0. By exploring these two maps as well as Chart 1, you can see that there are past trends that scholars use to predict the future of the global population. The twentieth century saw huge increases in both our population and the rate at which it grew. More recently, the global rate of growth has started to slow, and we expect that trend to continue. But, by switching scales, we see dramatic differences in the rates of population growth. While Eastern Europe has seen its population shrink in recent years, many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are experiencing higher than average growth rates. But why has any of this happened? What causes the population size to change? Three drivers of population growth There are three main factors that affect population growth in a country or region: mortality, fertility, and migration. Just so we're on the same page, let's define them: Mortality: Death rates across a country, region, or globally.Fertility: The average number of children born per woman.Migration: Migration into (immigration) or migration out of (emigration) a region/country. Globally, mortality rates have decreased. Child mortality in particular has declined. Life expectancy has increased across the globe. Declining mortality rates have made the population grow. That explains everything, right? The population is growing because people are dying less. Well, not quite. Remember that while the population is indeed growing, the rate of growth is slowing down. That's partly because although mortality rates have dropped, fertility rates have also gone down. On average, women are having fewer children. That reduces population growth rates. The global average fertility rate was 5 children per woman until the end of the 1960s. Since then, it has been cut in half, with an average of 2.5 children per woman. Fertility is a variable factor. It can change depending on how a society develops culturally and economically. Fertility is particularly dependent on the well-being and social status of women. So, we have a few different variables that affect population growth: how big a population is to begin with, death rates (mortality), and birth rates (fertility). At the global level, population changes are determined by the balance of only two variables: the number of people born each year, and the number who die. But, at the national or regional level, we need to consider a third variable: migration. We can consider these variables when trying to understand past population changes and project future population changes. But when we're trying to make projections about the future, there are a few different ways we can do that. Future projections are really complicated, even for experts. But, for our purposes, it really comes down to whether we think the future will be like the past or not. Are different regions experiencing the same, or different, trends? What will happen to the human population in the future, and what will that mean for the world? You will have the opportunity to explore these questions—and come to your own conclusions—in this data exploration. Author Bio Max Roser is the founder and director of Our World in Data. He began the project in 2011 and for several years was the sole author, until receiving funding for the formation of a team. Max’s research focuses on poverty, global health, and the distribution of incomes. He is also Programme Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford, and Co-executive Director of Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization that publishes and maintains the website and the data tools that make OWID’s work possible. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How, according to the author, do cheap labor and unregulated workplaces influence global trade?How has the American economy changed in recent years as manufacturing jobs are lost to automation or moved to countries with lower labor costs?Besides the extremely high costs that would probably be required to manufacture iPhones in the United States, Apple CEO Tim Cook also notes the lack of skilled workers in the United States as a reason for moving manufacturing to China. Why does this lack exist, according to the article?What are “conflict minerals” and what are some examples?Why is it difficult to know what products have achieved what certification and met what ethical standard, such as being “ethically sourced” or “Fairtrade”?What kind of complaints against Starbucks are mentioned in this essay, and what are some examples of the company’s responses? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. Since this is the first reading assignment of the course, you may not connect it to much other than the knowledge you already have. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this essay help you extend the frame narrative of production and distribution, and what kind of details help you make this narrative more specific? What details for Apple and Starbucks are really new, and what aspects of these businesses are similar to older ways of doing business around the world?Starbucks and Apple have both engaged in efforts to counter or reassure critics that their business practices are ethical. What do you think are some of the factors that might lead a company to violate clear ethical norms, or adhere to them? What do you think drives the efforts by Starbucks and Apple to act in an ethical way? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Goods Across the World Photograph of shipping containers of different colors, stacked on top of one another like blocks. By Bridgette Byrd O’Connor Have you ever thought about how many different nations contribute to your morning cup of coffee? What global resources affect your ability to post photos to your preferred social media app? These everyday luxuries are fueled by increasing globalization. Introduction How many different nations and workers does it take for you to buy a cup of coffee in the morning before school or for you to wake up for the school day to the sounds of the alarm on your phone? And do the companies that produce these products have high ethical and labor standards? In other words, are there hidden costs to having that cup of coffee or checking social media apps on your phone? Thus far, you've learned about how the world has become more interconnected. Transportation, communication, and access to skilled labor have improved tremendously in this era. In addition, the ways in which goods are produced and distributed has changed dramatically. This includes everything from something as simple as a cup of coffee or as complex as your smartphone. There are now hundreds to thousands of people who are involved in the design, production, distribution, marketing, and support of the products you use and consume on a daily basis. Thin, red lines indicate global shipping routes on a world map. Global commercial shipping density in 2010, by Grolltech. By B.S. Halpern, CC BY-SA 3.0. Thin, red lines indicate global shipping routes on a world map. Global commercial shipping density in 2010, by Grolltech. By B.S. Halpern, CC BY-SA 3.0. Asia is at the center of global production and distribution today. We've seen global trade routes and centers of production change over time. For example, during the early years of the Industrial Revolution, Britain and the North Atlantic zone were the main centers of manufacturing for the whole world. But since the late twentieth century, this role has shifted back to Asia. China, in particular, became a global player in the production and distribution of goods since 2005. Prior to 2005, Japan was the main organizer of trade in Asia. The late arrival of China as the global trading partner may seem strange. But a lot of their power and influence came with the changing nature of the Communist Party in China. The communists sought to maximize profits and establish a more efficient system of communication and transportation. India and China's citizens have benefited from the opening up of international trade markets. They have benefited from job growth that is directly related to export markets. More people may now be employed. But this does not necessarily mean that working conditions have improved or that wages have increased. This shift in the production and distribution of goods has hurt some nations while benefiting others. Companies moved production to nations with cheaper labor and fewer rules and regulations. As a result, the United States has seen its manufacturing jobs, such as printing and textiles, fade away. Politicians tend to focus on these as negative results. But there has also been a corresponding increase in service industry jobs, such as health care, advertising, and hospitality (tourism industry). There have also been increases in the production of manufactured goods, mainly due to automation. This means that the American unemployment rate hasn't necessarily increased. New service industry jobs have been created to replace the manufacturing jobs that were lost. In contrast, China has a much lower share of service industry employment related to exports. The nations that now lead the world in terms of manufacturing for export markets are China, Japan, Mexico, and Korea while the United States has the highest percentage for the service industry sector followed by New Zealand, Australia, and Canada (Escaith, 173). Apple’s iPhone The Apple iPhone has been one of the most coveted (wanted) items in the past 10 years. Apple, an American company, has sold over 1 billion phones worldwide. Most iPhone owners use it on a daily basis. So, it makes sense to include the iPhone in our list of products to trace its production and distribution. Modern day photograph shows three workers, wearing white lab coats and caps, working in a factory. Foxconn factory, Zhengzhou, China. By iphonedigital, public domain. Modern day photograph shows three workers, wearing white lab coats and caps, working in a factory. Foxconn factory, Zhengzhou, China. By iphonedigital, public domain. Apple makes most (about half) of its phones in Zhengzhou, China. But the components for the phone come from more than 700 different suppliers and about 30 different countries around the world. In addition to designing and marketing of the product, Apple also acts as the global supplier for its parts. Foxconn, a company based in Taiwan, owns and operates the Chinese manufacturing facility in Zhengzhou. The factory is located on 2.2 square miles and has a workforce of about 350,000 people. These workers are broken into day and night shifts. Most of these factory workers make about $300 a month. This can go up to $657 a month when overtime and years of service are factored in. This factory takes care of the final assembly, testing, and packaging of the product. Judging from the low cost of labor, you may be wondering how much Apple makes in terms of profits on its iPhones. The company obviously makes a lot. Apple was the first company to be valued at over $1 trillion. But Apple's profit on its iPhones is probably far less than many believe. Apple doesn't release all of its iPhone cost data. But many journalists and bloggers have attempted to break down the costs. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has stated that he's never seen one cost analysis that came close to being right. And there's a good reason for this. There are a ton of costs that go into producing the iPhone. These costs include concept and design, buying the component parts and manufacturing and shipping. They also include marketing, taxes, customs, and policing suppliers. The list could go on and on. So why does Apple choose to make the vast majority of its products overseas? Forbes Magazine recently published an article about how much it might cost Apple to make the iPhone in America. The cost was very high (about 30,000to30,000 to 30,000to30, comma, 000, t, o100,000 per phone!). Tim Cook explains that one of the main reasons for this is that the United States' workforce does not have the necessary skills. For example, there are not enough workers in the United States experienced in precision tooling. Precision tooling usually requires working with an advanced toolmaker as an apprentice. It also requires mechanical engineering skills. China has focused on vocational schooling and apprenticeships to meet these manufacturing needs. But nations like the United States have shifted away from vocational training in favor of university degrees. "There's a confusion about China…the popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs… China stopped being the low labor-cost country many years ago and that is not the reason to come to China from a supply point of view…the reason is because of the skill…and the quantity of skill in one location…The products we do require really advanced tooling. And the precision that you have to have in tooling and working with the materials that we do are state-of-the-art. And the tooling skill is very deep here. In the U.S. you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields" (Tim Cook, Apple CEO). In response to this shift in manufacturing to China, Apple has established a Supplier Responsibility Program (SRP). The program is intended to make sure that all of its foreign suppliers are paying a living wage1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. It also ensures working conditions meet Apple's standards. This includes caps on the number of hours worked per week and training that includes self-empowerment and well-being. Apple has created thousands of jobs in foreign countries. It has also boosted employment for U.S. workers in Apple retail stores and at their design base in California. Employment has also increased due to Apple's relationship with other companies, both in the U.S. and abroad, that produce the component parts for the iPhone. These component parts include chips, glass, switches, camera parts, processors, fingerprint sensors, and touchscreen controllers. Apple has created programs such as its SRP to ensure that all of its workers and suppliers are treated well. But the company has come under fire for continued problems at some factories. They have also been criticized for problems at the mines that supply the necessary materials for their iPhones. Some of the minerals that are mined and used in the lithium-ion batteries in the iPhones are considered conflict minerals. This label means that the minerals are sourced in areas that are in the middle of civil wars. So, the funds used to purchase these minerals are often also funding the continued fighting. Conflict minerals such as tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold (3TGs) are mainly found in the eastern areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This nation has had a troubled history. These troubles began in the mid-nineteenth century when European imperialists wanted access to its natural resources. They continued under a dictatorship established after the nation achieved independence in 1960. The DRC has also been involved in wars from 1996 to the present. These wars have led to the deaths and displacement of millions. The mines in the eastern provinces generate the most wealth for the nation. But they've also been a source of corruption, child labor, and labor violations for years. China is the largest importer of these raw materials. And many of these raw materials go into the creation of iPhones and other electronics. Apple took the extraordinary steps of mapping all of its suppliers and mineral smelters. They then assessed those suppliers and smelters to make sure that they were living up to the SRP. These lists of suppliers and smelters can be found on the Apple website. Posting on the website was done to ensure transparency. Apple is also trying to buy the necessary minerals directly from the mines. This will help avoid paying middlemen for services. But it will also allow Apple to check that these mining companies are not employing child labor. A photo of several boys and men standing on red-colored dirt and rocks. They are looking at the camera, and behind them is lush greenery.Artisan mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo. By Julien Harneis, CC BY-SA 2.0. A photo of several boys and men standing on red-colored dirt and rocks. They are looking at the camera, and behind them is lush greenery. Artisan mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo. By Julien Harneis, CC BY-SA 2.0. From start to finish, there are about 400 different steps to the production of the iPhone at its factory in China. The workers at the Zhengzhou plant have a staggering output. They produce about 500,000 phones per day (the equivalent of 350 phones per minute). The Chinese government has even built a customs facility next to the factory. This aids in the shipping process. After the phones clear Customs, they travel a short distance to the Zhengzhou airport. This airport recently expanded its operations as a direct result of the traffic related to the shipment of iPhones. Since the phones are small and lightweight, thousands can be packed into a 747 airplane. This means that they can move quickly around the world to consumers. The building of the factory in Zhengzhou has completely changed the area. Just as during the Industrial Revolution, a city has formed around the factory. The city provides workers with accommodation and services. Therefore, it's not just the factory workers who depend on Apple and Foxconn for their livelihoods. The thousands of people who have moved to this area to provide necessary services such as rental units, food, gas, and health care to the workers also depend on Apple. In addition, many others around the world also depend on Apple. This includes people who work for the suppliers of raw materials, those involved in the shipping of the phones, and those who work in retail stores and at call centers. Starbucks Coffee It's not often that a brand is so well known to people all around the world that all it takes is one image to know the company. Some companies have achieved this level of success. Names that come to mind include McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Apple, Ikea, Samsung, Mercedes, and Starbucks. In fact, the Starbucks symbol and its coffee can be seen and purchased in 28,209 locations in 76 countries around the world. As Starbucks has grown in popularity over the past few decades, so too has the criticism of the company. Starbucks, much like the case study on Apple above shows, has responded to these criticisms. They've attempted to make sure that their coffee is ethically sourced, produced, and distributed to its thousands of stores and millions of customers around the world. A coffee farmer, amidst bushy trees, holds a large, bamboo-like stick. He is wearing a wide-brimmed hat and a checkered shirt.Brazilian coffee farmer, 2008. By USAID, public domain. A coffee farmer, amidst bushy trees, holds a large, bamboo-like stick. He is wearing a wide-brimmed hat and a checkered shirt. Brazilian coffee farmer, 2008. By USAID, public domain. Starbucks has worked with coffee growers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to ensure that the beans they purchase are ethically sourced. In fact, they announced last year that 99 percent of their coffee has met ethically sourced guidelines. The company is also working hard to reach the 100-percent goal. But how much does Starbucks know about the practices at local farms including those that coerce or force labor or employ children? In August 2018, a complaint was filed by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Conectas Human Rights and the labor union ADERE MG. It was filed against six international companies including Starbucks, Illy, McDonald's, Nestlé, and Dunkin Donuts. The complaint stated labor violations occurred at Brazilian coffee farms in the Minas Gerais state. It alleges that some of the coffee growers in this region of Brazil have employed forced laborers and children on its farms. This region produces more than 50 percent of the country's coffee exports. The case is pending. But it highlights how difficult it is for large multinational companies to know fully about the labor and ethical practices of each small farm that does business with it. There are also questions about how much of the coffee produced and distributed by Starbucks counts as being Fairtrade certified. Currently, all of Starbucks Espresso Roast coffee beans are Fairtrade. This means that all of the beans it uses to create custom beverages in its stores meet this standard. Their other brand, Pike Place Roast, is also 100 percent Fairtrade certified. But their many other coffees do not fall into this 100-percent range. As previously stated, 99 percent of their beans are ethically sourced. But not all are Fairtrade, which many consider to be the best certification. And this is where it gets confusing. There are many different accreditation organizations for coffee producers. They include Direct Trade, Utz, Rainforest Alliance, Proudly Made in Africa, and Organic Certified. Each of these organizations has different standards for achieving their accreditation. Some only require that coffee farmers be 30-percent compliant2^22squared. This 30 percent-compliant threshold means that some coffee farmers can use substandard environmental and labor practices. However, Starbucks has created a number of initiatives to make sure it is committed to ethical sourcing and labor practices. It has also consistently been ranked as one of the most ethical companies both in coffee sourcing and as an employer. These initiatives include a Global Farmer Fund. The fund has invested $50 million to help coffee farmers. This includes supplying loans to over 2,000 women in Colombia to encourage more diversity in coffee farm ownership. The company also created a Supplier Diversity and Inclusion Program. This program fosters "business relationships with companies that are at least 51 percent owned and operated by a minority, woman, LGBTQ, veteran, person with a disability, or small business classified as HUB zone or 8(a)" (Starbucks). In 2018, a Starbucks store manager called the police on two African American men at one of its stores in Philadelphia while they were waiting for a business associate to arrive. After the incident, Starbucks famously closed down 8,000 of its stores in the United States to provide diversity training. The company isn't perfect, but it does strive to correct discriminatory practices. Supporters would argue that this was done as a result of Starbucks' commitment to diversity and inclusion. Critics counter that it was to prevent their brand and profits from taking a hit3^33cubed. Over the years, Starbucks has put its money and time behind programs that help both coffee farmers in other nations as well as its workers across the globe. It has achieved 100 percent pay equity for all genders and races, who perform similar work in their stores around the United States. They are also attempting to close gender pay gaps in all of their markets. They have hired 10,000 military veterans and spouses at their stores. They've also committed to adding another 15,000 veterans and spouses by 2025. In response to the United States' 2017 travel ban on refugees, the company plans to hire 10,000 refugees by 2022. The jobs will be at locations in the U.S., Europe, and Canada. All of these moves have been steps in the right direction in terms of trying to hire and support those who have been historically underserved. Map shows Starbucks locations around the world: nearly all of North and South America and Eurasia have Starbucks locations!Map of Starbucks locations around the world. By Hecki, CC BY-SA 3.0. Map shows Starbucks locations around the world: nearly all of North and South America and Eurasia have Starbucks locations! Map of Starbucks locations around the world. By Hecki, CC BY-SA 3.0. When it comes to environmental issues, Starbucks has pledged to create more eco-friendly stores. These stores will operate on renewable energy. At the moment they have 1,400. Their goal is 10,000 "green" stores—by their definition. In addition, about 62 percent of its stores use renewable energy sources. They also have a goal of distributing 100 million trees to growers in Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador by the year 2025. The goal is to achieve sustainable farming practices. They have currently given 21 million trees. Starbucks has also attempted to increase the percentage of recyclable materials in their coffee cups. They have promoted recycling in their stores. But when you consider the amount of single-use coffee cups and straws that are used on a daily basis, the damage seems overwhelming. Critics have also called the company out for other products used in their stores. These products include non-organic milk products and non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) foods. How much should a global company like Starbucks or Apple do to ensure that their products are environmentally friendly and ethical? Also, how much can they do without owning all of the means of production and distribution? These two companies charge the most for their products when compared to other providers of the same goods. However, people are still willing to pay the 4to4 to 4to4, t, o5 for a cup of coffee and 800to800 to 800to800, t, o1,100 for a phone. Until sales begin to drop, these companies will continue to produce these goods. But consumers can ultimately be the ones to demand the most change. [Notes] Author bio Bridgette Byrd O’Connor holds a DPhil in history from the University of Oxford and has taught Big History, World History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics for the past ten years at the high school level. In addition, she has been a freelance writer and editor for the Big History Project and the Crash Course World History and U.S. History curriculums. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why did the United States launch the Marshall Plan?The article cites two arguments about the “economic miracles” in Germany and Japan. What are the two arguments?Why were wealthy nations able to continue to exploit their former colonies even after they had gained independence?How did some African and Asian leaders fight back against this sort of dependency?What groups of Americans did not share in the new economic prosperity in the United States? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article gives the examples of Mosaddeq, Nasser, Allende, and Nkrumah as leaders who resisted economic dependence. What were some ways that decolonization collided with the Cold War to shape global production and distribution after 1945? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Devastation of Old Markets Five man stand together in front of a grand staircase. By Bennett Sherry World War II broke the world. As the United States and Soviet Union tried to put it back together, they clashed in the Cold War. While many economies recovered and grew, the Cold War also produced a global system of inequality between rich and poor nations. Rebuilding the world: Origins of the Cold War The Second World War changed how humans made, traded, and consumed goods. The war devastated the nations of Europe and East Asia. As many as 80 million people died in the war. After the war, nations sought to rebuild and rethink the global system, but there was disagreement over how best to rebuild. The biggest disagreements were between the United States and the Soviet Union. The tensions between the two superpowers sparked the Cold War. It was called a "cold" war because the two superpowers rarely fought directly against one another. Instead, they engaged in an arms race and tried to spread their influence around the world. Each superpower championed their economic model as the path to prosperity and peace. Each portrayed the other as evil. The Soviets believed in state-planned economies (where decisions and ownership are collectively held by the state rather than private owners). But the Americans were champions of free markets. In their attempts to win over other countries to their side of this debate, both governments sent huge amounts of financial and military aid to their allies. After the Second World War, the Soviet Union was expanding in Eastern Europe and Asia. The United States wanted to rebuild Western Europe and Japan to create a buffer against the Soviet expansion. So in 1948, the United States launched the Marshall Plan, named after Secretary of State George Marshall. This plan gave billions of dollars in economic aid to seventeen countries in western and southern Europe. The Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe refused aid from the Marshall Plan. But American efforts were a huge success in Western Europe. Immediately after the war, the infrastructure of England, France, Germany, and Japan was in ruins. The bombs and tanks of both Axis and Allied powers had destroyed whole cities. In 1945, millions of Germans were homeless, and their money was nearly worthless. Yet with aid from the United States and the implementation of new policies, within two decades, the Germany economy was the largest in Europe. Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Greece, and other American allies underwent similar economic "miracles" as the world rebuilt. People walk through a city that has been reduced to ruins. A statue of a man on horseback stands on top of a pile of rubble, next to a bombed-out building. One person drives a military vehicle through the wreckage and several others walk through. The German city of Nuremberg in ruins, 1945, on the right is a statue of Kaiser Wilhelm I. By National Archives and Records Administration, public domain. People walk through a city that has been reduced to ruins. A statue of a man on horseback stands on top of a pile of rubble, next to a bombed-out building. One person drives a military vehicle through the wreckage and several others walk through. The German city of Nuremberg in ruins, 1945, on the right is a statue of Kaiser Wilhelm I. By National Archives and Records Administration, public domain. Historian David Landes wrote about the Japanese and German recoveries. He insisted they were built on "work, education, determination," and American financial assistance. The aim of American aid to these countries was to "parry [block] the perceived Russian threat." The sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, however, disagreed. He argued that the post-war recovery of Europe and Japan was less idealistic on the part of the Americans. Instead, he claimed that the Americans helped because the "world-economy needed the re-entry of these countries both as major producers and as major customers for US production." The Americans embraced the idea of a "free world" in opposition to the communist world of the Soviet Union. They hoped that the success of their allies would convince more countries to join the American side. By the 1950s, the American government saw all foreign policy in the context of the global Cold War. Decolonization and economic dependency One of the most important changes after World War II was the collapse of European empires in Africa and Asia. With their economies in shambles from the war, European governments couldn't maintain the costs of empire. In 1945, over a third of the world's people lived in a colonized nation. Between 1945 and 1970, nearly every colonial nation gained their independence. As European nations lost their colonies in Africa and Asia, several things happened. The importance of Europe in global politics declined. From 1946 to 1970, membership in the United Nations grew from 35 states to 127. The leaders of the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia travelled to the United Nations. They spoke out against economic exploitation. They also spoke against racial inequality around the world. In the 1960s, the Non-Aligned Movement emerged. It was led by Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Members of this movement refused to side with either the United States or Soviet Union. Instead, they decided to invest in their own countries. Three men sit at a table, smiling, each looking over a piece of paper. One man is writing something down. Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt), Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia), and Jawaharlal Nehru (India) at the Conference of Non-Aligned Nations held in Belgrade, September, 1961. Public domain. Three men sit at a table, smiling, each looking over a piece of paper. One man is writing something down. Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt), Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia), and Jawaharlal Nehru (India) at the Conference of Non-Aligned Nations held in Belgrade, September, 1961. Public domain. West European and Japanese economic revival was built on the exploitation of Europe’s former colonies. Europe and Japan used American money to rebuild their countries. But they also needed raw materials. Under European imperialism, Europeans relied on people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to produce cash crops. Cash crops were sold abroad to profit the empire rather than consumed locally. Some examples include sugar, cacao, rubber, and cotton. These crops were shipped from former European colonies to the rich nations of Europe and North America. There, they were turned into consumer goods like chocolate bars, car tires, and cheap t-shirts and resold at a profit. This is how African cacao and the labor of workers (many of them children) becomes candy bars in American grocery stores. African farmers used their best land to produce cash crops, on which they were economically dependent. With less land left for food crops, many African nations depended on food imports or aid from wealthy countries. This created a system of dependency. Wealthy countries became richer by turning resources from poor countries into consumer goods. Poor countries became dependent on foreign trade, foreign loans, and foreign aid to feed their people. The political dominance of imperialism quickly turned into the economic dependency of neo-colonialism, a term coined by Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, to describe this cycle of inequality between rich and poor nations. Two presidents, dressed in suits, stand next to each other at a podium in front of two microphones. President John F. Kennedy Meets with the President of the Republic of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, March 8, 1961. By Abbie Rowe, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, public domain. Two presidents, dressed in suits, stand next to each other at a podium in front of two microphones. President John F. Kennedy Meets with the President of the Republic of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, March 8, 1961. By Abbie Rowe, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, public domain. Leaders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America tried to escape this cycle of dependency. They did this by building industry in their own countries. Often, they would try to do this by nationalizing industry. Nationalizing industry means taking private industries and placing them under the public ownership of the government. Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq nationalized his country's oil industry. Until 1953 Iran's oil industry had been controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as BP). In Egypt, President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956. That ended almost a century of British ownership. Other leaders such as President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and President Salvador Allende of Chile engaged in similar projects of state-led industrialization. The American government saw all foreign policy as part of the Cold War. As a result, they were suspicious of these kinds of policies aimed at economic independence. The US suspected them of being associated with communism and the Soviet Union. American presidents, Congress, the military, and intelligence agencies therefore often acted to combat these policies of nationalization. They saw the policies as the spread of communism. Mosaddeq, Nkrumah, and Allende were all removed from power in coups. In each of these coups the CIA played a role or is suspected of doing so. In all three cases, the new governments realigned their countries with the United States and privatized their nation's industries. Often, the rise of dictators followed the fall of nationalist leaders. In Iran, for example, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled his country after 1953 as a strongman until the 1979 Iranian Revolution. A picture of two, smiling men, standing next to one another. Both are dressed in suits and ties.The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and American President, Lyndon B. Johnson, June 5, 1964. By Library of Congress, Public Domain. A picture of two, smiling men, standing next to one another. Both are dressed in suits and ties. The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and American President, Lyndon B. Johnson, June 5, 1964. By Library of Congress, Public Domain. Consumption and inequality The revival of Western Europe and Japan and new American wealth created a boom in consumerism. Americans moved to the suburbs to live in houses that they filled with washing machines and new plastic consumer goods. They bought cars to drive them from their houses to jobs in cities. These cars needed oil, first from Texas, and later from countries in the Middle East. As consumerism increased in wealthy countries, demand skyrocketed for raw materials like cacao, coffee, and rubber from poorer countries. An advertisement for a washing machine shows a picture of a blonde woman in a blue dress smiling in front of a washing machine, holding a pile of neatly folded towels. A headline reads “The World’s Finest Automatic Washer!”1950 General Electric Automatic Washer Advertisement, Life Magazine, March 27, 1950. By SenseiAlan, CC BY 2.0. An advertisement for a washing machine shows a picture of a blonde woman in a blue dress smiling in front of a washing machine, holding a pile of neatly folded towels. A headline reads “The World’s Finest Automatic Washer!” 1950 General Electric Automatic Washer Advertisement, Life Magazine, March 27, 1950. By SenseiAlan, CC BY 2.0. But inequality was also a problem within wealthy nations. For example, as white consumer classes thrived in the United States, black consumers found themselves excluded from the new American dream of cars and homes in the suburbs. In many cases, such as Jim Crow segregation in the south and redlining1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript in the north, official policies and laws systematically denied equal economic opportunity. A billboard reads “The more WOMEN at work the sooner we WIN”, and depicts a woman in a red uniform working on an airplane window. Woman working in an airplane factory, 1943, by Alfred T. Palmer, Office of War Information, Bureau of Public Inquiries. By Library of Congress. Public domain. A billboard reads “The more WOMEN at work the sooner we WIN”, and depicts a woman in a red uniform working on an airplane window. Woman working in an airplane factory, 1943, by Alfred T. Palmer, Office of War Information, Bureau of Public Inquiries. By Library of Congress. Public domain. The end of the Second World War also signaled setbacks in gender equality in the United States. Women had kept American factories running while men fought in Europe and the Pacific. Historian Lizabeth Cohen writes that women had driven the wartime economy with their labor and consumption. But they were relegated to the domestic sphere as men returned from the battlefields to the factories. In fact, there were new tax systems in the US They encouraged traditional patriarchal (male- dominated) households "of male breadwinner father and homemaker mother, thereby making women financially dependent on men." The period from 1945 to 1970 saw the rebuilding of some of the world's largest economies. One third of the human population was liberated from the bonds of empire. However, this period also started the Cold War and the system of dependency. Both produced decades of conflict. They also produced massive inequalities between the richest and poorest nations and people. These inequalities would only worsen in the 1970s and 1980s, and many continue today. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt’s World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why did African women infrequently appear in official records kept during colonial rule?How did the roles for African women under European colonial rule differ from women’s roles in pre-colonial societies?What was the role of “warrant chiefs”? How did colonial rulers create a new structure of authority in Nigerian communities? Why do you think they did this?Why did European rulers force African women to stick to the boundaries of mothers, wives, and home keepers? How might the pre-colonial roles of women in African society have undermined colonial authority?How did Egyptian women respond when the anti-colonial party led by Saad Zaghlul was forced into exile? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Historian Rachael Hill makes the claim that “women suffered more under colonial rule than men.” What evidence does the author provide for this statement? Review what you already know about gender expectations and the changing role of women through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in considering Hill’s thesis.How has the writing of history evolved since what the author describes as the “early histories of the time” that “ignored women’s struggles for independence”? Can you think of reasons why the author believes that “today, history scholars understand that women played important roles”? What has changed in how historians do their work? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Decolonizing Women A drawn image of five women dressed in simple, wrapped clothing. By Rachael Hill Although often overlooked, women played an important role in the anti-colonial struggle. Here we look at how women fought for independence in three parts of Africa. Although often overlooked, women played an important role in the anti-colonial struggle. Here we look at how women fought for independence in three parts of Africa. Women suffered more under colonial rule than men. In addition, early histories of the time ignore women's struggles for independence. Women don't appear much in the official records of that time because they were forbidden to participate in government or business. In some cases, colonial rulers forced women to live as Europeans thought they should, as mothers, wives and home keepers. But before European occupation those same women may have held positions of power in their community. In other cases, women may have already been forced into domestic-only roles. In either case, because women were not officially allowed any roles outside of the home during colonial rule, the records of the time largely ignored them. But today, history scholars understand that women played important roles in groups fighting for independence and in labor unions, and women even fought in armed struggles against European colonizers. In this article, we will look at the role of women in struggles for independence in three parts of Africa. Colonial rulers and warrant chiefs in Nigeria Colonial rulers generally only accepted males in roles of authority. For example, before colonial times, communities in Southeastern Nigeria were run by groups of men and women rather than single leaders. But colonial occupiers would only work with male "chiefs." Since there weren't any, the British chose random men to be leaders and called these men "warrant chiefs." These warrant chiefs―supported by colonial rulers―acted as judges and had a lot of power. This included power often over women who had previously been a part of political rule. Women also struggled to make money under colonial rule. In many West African societies before colonialism, women farmed and participated in local business. Most able-bodied women were either farmers or merchants. In southern Nigeria, for example, all members of a family farmed the family land. A drawing depicts three officers in tall hats sitting at a table. Next to them are several seated and standing people, the Nigerian chiefs.British colonial administrators meet with Nigerian warrant chiefs A drawing depicts three officers in tall hats sitting at a table. Next to them are several seated and standing people, the Nigerian chiefs. British colonial administrators meet with Nigerian warrant chiefs Women helped produce important crops like palm oil in Igbo societies, and cocoa in the Yoruba societies. However, British colonialists brought the concept of individual land ownership to Nigeria and only allowed men to be landowners, so women found it difficult to make money from these important cash crops. In some areas however, like among the Igbo, women tried to hold on to their historic role as cultivators and market sellers. Women participate in anti-colonial actions Igbo women's knowledge of farming and business helped them resist unfair British laws. In 1929, the British began unfairly taxing women in southeastern Nigeria. These women protested at warrant chief's offices and attacked colonial buildings to demand an end to unfair taxes and the warrant chief system. The women used protest methods that were historically used by Igbo women to express their disapproval of men who abused their power. The women danced, sang songs about their poor treatment, and destroyed courthouses. This protest was known as the Aba Women's Rebellion and lasted two months. The protest ended on December 17th, 1929. During the protest, the British military fired into crowds of protestors and killed 55 women. But the protests did help remove warrant chiefs in certain areas and women began to participate in Native Courts. Throughout the time the British were in Nigeria, women protested. Groups like the Market Women's Association led by Alimotu Pelewura and the Abeokuta Women's Union led by Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, pushed for women's rights and helped spread a sense of nationalism―the idea that people should be able to govern themselves. This nationalism eventually led to Nigeria winning independence from the British. Unfortunately, Nigerian male leaders did not support women's rights and downplayed women's role in winning independence. Drawings of women: on the left, three women stand together. In the center, a woman sits in a chair wearing a stern expression. On the right, two women are drawn next to one another.Participants in the Aba Women’s Rebellion (left), Alimotu Pelewura of Market Women’s Association (center), and Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of Abeokuta Women’s Union (wearing glasses, far right). Drawings of women: on the left, three women stand together. In the center, a woman sits in a chair wearing a stern expression. On the right, two women are drawn next to one another. Participants in the Aba Women’s Rebellion (left), Alimotu Pelewura of Market Women’s Association (center), and Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of Abeokuta Women’s Union (wearing glasses, far right). In Egypt, women fought against colonialism and discrimination. Egypt had fallen heavily in debt to European powers by the late 19th century and was seized by the British in 1882. By the early 20th century, Egyptian nationalism―the desire to self-govern—grew in response to British rule. Saad Zaghloul led Wafd, the first major nationalist party. This party, led by men, fought for independence from Britain but also called for improving the rights of women in Egypt. Women also spoke out about the need to improve women's education. They argued that women could play important roles in society beyond being mothers and wives. When Zaghloul and his party members were forced to leave Egypt, women helped organize the growing revolution against British rule. On March 15, 1919, women joined in strikes, protests, and marches in Cairo. The next day, the wives of the nationalist leaders were forced to leave Egypt. Safia Zaghloul, Huda Sharawi, and Mana Fahmi Wissa led thousands of women on a march. They carried flags of the crescent and cross, showing that Muslim and Christian women both opposed British rule. These women also led boycotts of British goods and continued to protest throughout the struggle for independence. Huda Shaarawi, wife of a Wafd party organizer and the former leader of the party's women, founded the Egyptian Feminist Union (EFU). The EFU called for full political rights for women, equal education, and changes to the personal status law. (The personal status law ruled women's rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance, and often unfairly favored men over women). In 1954, a group called the National Liberation Front (FLN) fought against French colonialists in Algeria. Many Muslim women joined the FLN even though they were not allowed to have leadership roles. But during Algeria's war for independence (1954-1962) women supported the FLN by raising money, and as soldiers, spies, nurses, and cooks. They served as spies in the Battle of Algiers from 1956 to 1957. They worked undercover, hiding messages, money, and weapons under their veils. They even dressed as Europeans in order to enter areas where Europeans lived and plant bombs. The roles that women played in the battle for independence were far different than the roles they were allowed in Algeria's pre-colonial male-ruled society. However, when Algeria won independence in 1962, most male Algerian leaders pushed for women to return to traditional roles in the home. A drawn depiction of a woman sitting at a table, writing on a piece of paper at a desk.Huda Shaarawi of the Egyptian Feminist Union. A drawn depiction of a woman sitting at a table, writing on a piece of paper at a desk. Huda Shaarawi of the Egyptian Feminist Union. Fighting for independence European colonizers forced women out of jobs, took property from them, and removed them from government roles. Many things made it difficult for women to be a part of fighting colonialism. They were forced to be dependent on men, had less rights than men, could not own land and could not even earn money. But they still found important ways to help fight for independence. Author bio Rachael Hill is a Ph.D. candidate in the History department at Stanford University where she studies the history of health and medicine in Africa. She has taught African History at the university level and Critical Reading to high school students. Her dissertation research focuses on the history of traditional medicine and medicinal plant research in 20th-century Ethiopia. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why did the Great Depression spread from the United States to so many other parts of the world so quickly?How did governments react to the crisis?Why was the crisis so devastating for Latin America and European colonies in Africa and Asia?What are some ways that states grew more powerful during the crisis?What ended the Great Depression? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: There has been a global economic crisis in your lifetime. The Great Recession of 2008 is now more than ten years behind us, and it was not as devastating as the Great Depression, but its effects still linger. Can you draw any comparison between our more recent economic crisis and the crisis in the 1930s?The Great Depression was a collapse of international networks and global production and distribution. What are some ways that these collapses reshaped communities? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Global Great Depression A photograph shows African-American flood victims lined up to get food & clothing from Red Cross relief station in front of billboard extolling, ironically, WORLD’S HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING/ THERE’S NO WAY LIKE THE AMERICAN WAY. By Bennett Sherry The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that affected the lives of billions and helped cause the Second World War. The old saying, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," applies to economic systems. Capitalism in crisis On the morning of Thursday, October 24th, 1929 the New York stock market began a crash that would last four days. The fallout of that crash would last a decade. It started in the United States, but the Great Depression was an unprecedented, worldwide economic collapse. The ripple effects of "Black Thursday" would be felt all over the globe. As the Great Depression got worse in the early 1930s, it appeared that, a decade after the end of the First World War, the old European-centered capitalist economic order was collapsing. This course has emphasized how the Long Nineteenth Century created a single global economic system that linked the world through trade and finance. Because of this, when most of Europe went to war in 1914, much of the rest of the world had been affected in some way. These connections continued after the war as well. Let's follow them to see how the crash of the U.S. economy could spread to the rest of the world. First, European markets were closely connected to American markets. As European countries tried to recover from the war, they depended on American financing. That's how in 1929, when the American economy started its crash, it brought Europe down with it. Then it was Europe's connections that quickly made this a global economic crisis. Remember that by the early twentieth century, a lot of the world lived under some form of European colonialism. European global empires linked far-flung economies in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to Europe and the Americas. It didn't take long for the dominoes to fall. Crisis and isolationism in the West What caused the Great Depression? Many things, but inequality was high on the list. In 1929, the top 1 percent of Americans owned more than half of their country's wealth 1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. Many of the remaining 99 percent went into debt during the 1920s to support their consumer lifestyles and open businesses. To make matters worse, wealthy financiers on Wall Street took on risky debts and made risky investments. This recipe for disaster is what cooked up the 1929 stock market crash. People—mainly in the United States, but also from other parts of the world—responded to the stock market crash in the worst way possible: they panicked. They took all their money out of the banks. Now banks didn't have enough cash on hand, and the whole crisis got worse. In the first years of the depression, the global production of goods ground to a halt. American manufacturing declined by 36 percent from 1929 to 1930 and by another 36 percent the following year. International trade fell by 30 percent. As a result, the price of even basic necessities, like wheat and rice, plummeted. Wheat prices fell by 40 percent and rice by 50 percent, globally. The price of coffee, cotton, rubber, and other cash crops fell 40 percent, crippling the economies that produced them. As production and trade declined, factories shut down, and workers lost their jobs. By 1932, around 30 million people were unemployed worldwide. Unemployment rates were most extreme in the United States and Photograph of a packed crowd standing on a city sidewalk, just outside of a bank.A crowd gathers outside a New York bank, waiting to withdraw their money. Public domain. Photograph of a packed crowd standing on a city sidewalk, just outside of a bank. A crowd gathers outside a New York bank, waiting to withdraw their money. Public domain. Another way the dominoes kept falling was a lack of international cooperation. All over the world, governments chose to put tariffs in place. Tariffs are taxes on foreign goods. They're intended to force citizens to buy domestic goods by making imports more expensive. But during the Great Depression, tariffs made matters a lot worse, especially for people living in European colonies and Latin America. Crisis and exploitation in the colonies Unemployment statistics in the United States and Europe are impressively scary, but in Latin America and in European colonies in Africa and Asia, the Great Depression also had devastating effects. Europeans had been using many of their colonies to grow cash crops like rubber, sugar, and coffee. Cash crops aren't for local consumption, and they're not necessities. West African rubber trees helped build the growing auto industries of Europe and North America. Pop quiz: What do people not buy when they've just lost their job and all their money? If you said "cars" you are correct! So British and French colonies in West Africa (and Southeast Asia) suddenly found themselves with a bunch of rubber that no one wanted to buy. They couldn't use it, sell it, or eat it. As cash-strapped consumers in the United States and Europe cut back on non-essentials like chocolate, coffee, cars, and diamonds, it was Latin America and the colonized world who paid the price. Tariffs were particularly harmful, but in addition, colonial governments tried to wring as much resource and tax value out of them as possible to benefit struggling European economies. Of course, colonized people did resist. Moses Ochonu, a historian of colonial Africa, details how Nigerians found methods to cope with economic decline and resist further colonial exploitation. Organized labor strikes and tax revolts directly resisted the increasingly harsh conditions. But some found other methods to escape or resist worsening laws and taxation. For example, Nigerian women started local textile businesses, and farmers turned their cash crops into food crops for local sale. Still others adopted a semi-nomadic lifestyle in order to avoid paying taxes. As the economy falls, the state rises The Great Depression changed the way governments saw their relationship to production and distribution. This was a collapse of global proportions, but it was specifically a collapse of industrial free-trade capitalism. The Soviet Union—the world's first state based on communist economics—did not suffer economic collapse. Joseph Stalin used the opportunity to create a Five Year Plan in 1928, calling for taking land from individual peasants and putting it under the control of group "collectives", while also rapidly building Soviet industry. Of course, Joseph Stalin broke a few eggs in making this economic omelet2^22squared—around 20 million of them. As the U.S.S.R. transformed itself into a state-planned industrial economy in the 1930's, Stalin's government purged Soviet society of anyone who resisted. Around 20 million people starved or were killed in these purges. Nevertheless, the Soviet economy looked better, and this was one reason many countries in the West began to think maybe they should be controlling their economies more as well. In Western Europe and the United States, governments started taking a more active role in directing the economy and providing social safety nets for their citizens. The state, rather than the family, became the last line of defense against starvation. While still not nearly as rigid as the state-planned economy of the U.S.S.R., these new economic experiments—some call it welfare capitalism, democratic socialism, or the welfare state—gave more power to the state in controlling production and distribution. The U.S. president, Franklin Roosevelt, for example, sought to address wealth inequality and provide government jobs through the reforms and massive public works projects of the New Deal. Today, the minimum wage you're guaranteed for summer jobs, the social security your grandparents receive, and much of the infrastructure you depend on has its roots in Roosevelt's "New Deal" from the 1930s. These policies all gave more security to American citizens. But many capitalists and conservative politicians worried that it gave too much power to the government. At the time, they called Roosevelt's plan for social security "the lash of the dictator", though many of its reforms endure to this day. Photo of Elanor Roosevelt and several men standing outside at a construction site. One man is holding a sign that reads “USA Work Program”.Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady of the United States, visiting Iowa in 1936 to see a New Deal public works project. Public domain. Photo of Elanor Roosevelt and several men standing outside at a construction site. One man is holding a sign that reads “USA Work Program”. Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady of the United States, visiting Iowa in 1936 to see a New Deal public works project. Public domain. War and money American political rhetoric may have called New Deal policies "dictatorial", but elsewhere actual dictators rose to power during the depression. Most historians think that economic conditions weren't directly responsible for dictators like Adolf Hitler in Germany; however, others argue that they did help them to appeal to suffering populations. And these authoritarian dictators—especially Adolf Hitler in Germany—set the stage for history's deadliest conflict: the Second World War. Ultimately, it wasn't welfare reforms that ended the Great Depression. It was war. Germany, Japan, and Italy took state control to the extreme with militant authoritarianism and fascism. Germany and Japan pulled their countries out of economic stagnation by increasing military production and using their new military might to aggressively seize new land and resources. The U.S. economy, where the depression was most pronounced, only recovered when it started building and selling huge numbers of expensive tanks, planes, and ships. One way to fix unemployment was to hire people to make guns and shoot other people with them. In addition to setting the stage for WWII, the Great Depression prepared parts of the world for the waves of decolonization that followed the war. Colonized people in Africa and Asia were hit hard by the depression. After the war, they looked around at a global capitalist-imperialist system that produced economic collapse and two world wars. And they asked themselves: "why do we let them rule us?" [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt’s World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why was there so much bloodshed in South Asia in the late 1940s, and how did the British government try to contain the violence?How did the partition of South Asia influence the way the Cold War unfolded in that region?How did the United States try to contain communism in Latin America? Where did they fail?Why was the United States so interested in preventing communism in the former Belgian Congo? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article points out that the United States had to frequently intervene during the Cold War to stop socialist reformers in many places. Why do you think that communist and socialist ideas were so appealing to so many people in the newly independent nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America?What do you think was the Soviet interest in helping anti-colonial movements in many parts of the world? Why did they decide it was worth intervening so often? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Cold War Around the World Several men are walking down the street together, smiling and in conversation. Two of the men are dressed in Cuban military gear, and the others are in suits and ties. By Burleigh Hendrickson We called it a “cold” war because there were fewer guns and bombs than usual. But the ideological rivalry of two superpowers enabled violence and tensions in smaller, newer nations around the globe. Decolonization and the Cold War The US-USSR Cold War rivalry began just as traditional European empires came to an end. With decolonization in Asia and Africa, plus the already independent states in Latin America and elsewhere demanding sovereignty, there were a lot of fresh young governments out there. Two superpowers with very different governments, the US and the Soviet Union1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript, were eager—and competitive—in their efforts to influence them. In Southeast Asia, independence movements that grew into civil conflicts were sponsored by one superpower or the other. In Latin America, American companies influenced government and economic affairs, even as Soviet movements emerged in the same places. The US military intervened often with covert operations to protect American interests. They wanted to stop socialist or communist governments from reclaiming land in Latin America owned by American companies. Over in Africa, the US and the USSR vied for economic and political influence in newly independent countries. As in Latin America, the US wanted to prevent African governments from handing control of private industries—like those profitable mining companies—to the state. It meant that right after these decolonized nations liberated themselves from European control, they had to face the intrusion of American and Soviet interests. The Cold War in Asia China's path to communism in 1949 and the violent conflict in Vietnam are well documented, but the Cold War mattered in other parts of Asia. Mohandas Gandhi led a mostly peaceful independence movement against British control in South Asia. But decolonization produced horrific violence between Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, who had been pitted against each other under British rule and now competed for political power. More than a million people were killed. In an effort to end civil war, in 1947 British India was partitioned (divided) into Hindu-majority India, as well as East and West Pakistan, which were dominated by powerful Muslim majorities. Also in South Asia, Pakistan joined a trade alliance with the US and others in 1954 designed to contain the spread of communism. Meanwhile, India became a key player at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia, which encouraged new nations to avoid taking sides with the US or the USSR. The Cold War heated up along the India-Pakistan border over disputed territory in Kashmir in 1965. When the United Nations called for a diplomatic solution, the US halted arms supplies to the region. This worked in India's favor as it already had a stronger military. It was able to maintain control over Kashmir after a ceasefire, though the region remains in dispute to this day. A civil war between East and West Pakistan in the early 1970s also involved India, the US, and the USSR. Most Pakistanis were Muslim, but they did not share a language. West Pakistan forced its language, Urdu, on Bangla2^22squared speaking East Pakistanis. West Pakistan also controlled resources, education, and the military. When East Pakistan sought to create its own nation, Cold War powers took sides. The US supported West Pakistan, while India and the USSR supported East Pakistan. Indian forces defeated West Pakistan in less than two weeks. With India's help, East Pakistan gained its independence in 1971, becoming the new nation of Bangladesh. The conflict split East and West Pakistani communities. Violence between Muslims and minority Hindus increased, leaving scars that still impact multi-cultural harmony in South Asia. Map shows the division of East and West Pakistan by India, after the collapse of British India. South Asia after the collapse of British India in the late 1940s. Note that East Pakistan (Bangladesh, today) and West Pakistan (Pakistan, today) were physically divided by India. Public domain. Map shows the division of East and West Pakistan by India, after the collapse of British India. South Asia after the collapse of British India in the late 1940s. Note that East Pakistan (Bangladesh, today) and West Pakistan (Pakistan, today) were physically divided by India. Public domain. And if you're thinking we forgot Central Asia, the Cold War was just as chilly there. Though the British Empire gave up full control of Afghanistan in 1919, the arbitrary line they drew on that nation's southern border divided communities. Peoples like the Pashtuns and Uzbeks preferred tribal or regional allegiances over a national identity. Their extremely rough terrain and remote regions made it easy to resist foreign powers and do their own thing. But in the late 1970s, when a group of communist sympathizers tried and failed to unify Afghanistan with socialist ideas, the USSR invaded. Fearing the spread of Soviet influence, the US funded Islamic jihadists, who viewed the Soviets as foreign invaders and infidels. This conflict lasted nearly a decade, bankrupting the USSR and contributing to its collapse in the early 1990s. While this US strategy had short-term benefits of weakening the Soviet Union, it also helped bring to power Islamic fundamentalists who suppressed women's rights and ruled through threat of violence. The Cold War in Latin America and the Caribbean On to another continent (same Cold War, though). Three centuries of Spanish colonial rule left Latin American communities divided along ethnic and economic lines. In Guatemala, indigenous Mayas were marginalized in favor of a minority of European descendants. Two percent of people owned three quarters of the farm land. They also welcomed foreign investment. By the middle of the twentieth century, the American-based United Fruit Company became the largest single land-owner in the country. Local banana farmers were forced out of business. In the 1940s, discontent led to election victories for socialists seeking more equitable distribution of resources. Then in the 1950s Guatemalan leaders gave farm land back to a half a million poor people and allowed workers to organize for better wages (similar to land reform in China). Fearing the loss of land and spread of communist ideas, powerful American businessmen convinced the US to work with opposition leaders in Guatemala to overthrow the socialist government. With the help of the C.I.A.3^33cubed, armed Guatemalan rebels overthrew the government in 1954. They put a staunch anti-communist in charge, who returned most of the seized land back to the United Fruit Company. Political divisions continued between poor indigenous and wealthy elites who were backed by military dictatorships. From the point of view of US businesses, things ended well in Guatemala. That success emboldened US intervention in places like Costa Rica and Honduras, where it wanted to protect American-owned banana plantations. Cuba was another story, since the US failed to prevent communism there. The USSR supported Fidel Castro's Communist government, which took power in 1959. While Castro nationalized industries, the US authorized the C.I.A. to begin working with Cuban resistance groups. Castro had learned from Guatemala, and was able to thwart a coup attempt in 1961. US-backed rebels came to Cuban shores in what became a high-profile embarrassment for the US known as the "Bay of Pigs." Outside of China and the USSR, Cuba—an island about the size of Florida—was perhaps the most influential communist nation during the Cold War. The following year, under Castro, Cuba even briefly harbored Soviet nuclear missiles only 90 miles from Florida. Known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis" this was one of the tensest 13 days of the Cold War with both US and USSR leaders in a military standoff. Cooler heads prevailed, but many believe nuclear war was narrowly avoided. Not all of Castro's policies were popular with Cubans. Many fled to the US as Castro's regime seized the property of wealthy citizens. Under Communism, many Cubans have lived in poverty without access to many modern technologies. However, the state promotes education and health, with many residents of neighboring countries traveling to Cuba for medical care. It remains a communist country today. Overall, the course of Latin American history was certainly altered by the multiple, destabilizing interventions from the US and the USSR. Since the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s, countries like Columbia and Argentina have undergone the painful process of reconciliation to address past atrocities of Cold War dictatorships. Others like Honduras have fallen into economic dependency on the US with little long-term benefit to poor people4^44start superscript, 4, end superscript. The Cold War in Africa As in Latin America and Asia, communist and socialist ideas held great sway over decolonizing populations in Africa. Anti-imperial and pan-African5^55start superscript, 5, end superscript sentiment was fierce immediately following World War Two. European presence had accelerated ethnic conflicts and pillaged (robbed) Africa's vast natural resources. Pan-Africanists felt a strong cultural pride in their African heritage. This thinking reached all the way to the US, where many African Americans began wearing traditional African clothing and growing out their natural hair instead of straightening it to appear more European. Pan-Africanists began connecting at international conferences to exchange cultural and political ideas. The Belgian Congo in central Africa witnessed some of the greatest Cold War competition. A charismatic young leader, Patrice Lumumba, led a movement against Belgian rule. A pan-Africanist with communist sympathies, Lumumba became independent Congo's first Prime Minister in 1960. He immediately faced a chaotic situation. The US and Belgium wanted to maintain foreign businesses in resource-rich places like Katanga, a state that was threatening to secede from the Congo. Violent clashes followed, and some Congolese soldiers carried out atrocities against certain ethnic groups and also against Belgians. A black and white photo of a man, looking at the camera, standing on the street. He wears a faint smile and is dressed in an overcoat and tie. Patrice Lumumba attending the Congolese Round Table Conference in Brussels, Belgium, January 1960. By Harry Pot, CC BY-SA 3.0. A black and white photo of a man, looking at the camera, standing on the street. He wears a faint smile and is dressed in an overcoat and tie. Patrice Lumumba attending the Congolese Round Table Conference in Brussels, Belgium, January 1960. By Harry Pot, CC BY-SA 3.0. Neither the United Nations nor other Western powers would assist Lumumba in putting down the rebellion in Katanga, so he turned to the Soviet Union. The anti- communist members of his new government were so aggravated by this, Lumumba was captured by opposition leaders and executed in 1961—with the help of Belgian and US intelligence. Congolese military leaders assumed power and cut all ties to the USSR. After his death, the Soviet Union created the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow in 1961 to educate Third World students and attract them to communism. This period of Cold War tensions and targeted attacks dramatically altered life in the Congo. Most European settlers fled, and out of the chaos of independence a strong military dictatorship emerged in 1965. This left a legacy of anti- communism, corruption, and authoritarian rule. Other African nations like Egypt ended western alliances in the 1950s and 1960s. Nationalists took control of British and French imperial interests like the Suez Canal, a vital waterway for trade. Egyptian leaders engaged in socialist projects without necessarily taking sides with either the US or the Soviet Union, but also accepted military aid from the Soviets. The government managed to get economic assistance from both superpowers for major construction projects like the Aswan Dam on the Nile River. They maintained a general neutrality in the Cold War until the 1970s, when Egypt began to strengthen ties to the US. In summary, decolonization and the Cold War were intertwined in many ways. New nations faced difficult political growing pains after European imperialism. As they pursued trading relationships, they were often forced to side with either American or Soviet interests when they needed economic, technical, or military assistance. Both superpowers intervened often, determining political outcomes in decolonizing nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Results varied, but Cold War rivalries often produced chilling instability, corruption, and authoritarian rule. [Notes] Author bio Burleigh Hendrickson is a Visiting Assistant Professor in French and Francophone Studies at Dickinson College. He holds a PhD in world history from Northeastern University, and taught survey courses in the history of globalization at Boston College. He has published several peer-reviewed articles on transnational political activism in the Francophone world. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How did the Qing rule over a huge, diverse country and keep it unified?How did the Qing use its imperial power to influence the economy through agriculture?How did the merchant class, who were traditionally looked down upon in Confucian thought, grow much larger and became powerful both socially and politically? How did Qing rulers react to this new power?What was China’s relationship with global trade in this period?Historical narratives are built on many sources, including writings from historical figures. In this article, you read an excerpt from a letter from a Ming emperor to a European monarch. How does the rest of this article support, extend, or contest the emperor’s narrative that, “[O]ur Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders? There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce”. How did the Qing rule over a huge, diverse country and keep it unified? How did the Qing use its imperial power to influence the economy through agriculture? How did the merchant class, who were traditionally looked down upon in Confucian thought, grow much larger and became powerful both socially and politically? How did Qing rulers react to this new power? What was China’s relationship with global trade in this period? Historical narratives are built on many sources, including writings from historical figures. In this article, you read an excerpt from a letter from a Ming emperor to a European monarch. How does the rest of this article support, extend, or contest the emperor’s narrative that, “[O]ur Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders? There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce”. Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Review the quote from Emperor Qian Long's Letter to King George III in 1793. Why did the Chinese emperor reject foreign goods? Contrast this quote with the Enlightenment attitude of European imperialists towards colonies from the European States and Empires article.What impact did the Qing Dynasty have on trading networks in the 1700s? Did this impact the whole world evenly? Review the quote from Emperor Qian Long's Letter to King George III in 1793. Why did the Chinese emperor reject foreign goods? Contrast this quote with the Enlightenment attitude of European imperialists towards colonies from the European States and Empires article. What impact did the Qing Dynasty have on trading networks in the 1700s? Did this impact the whole world evenly? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Qing Dynasty Drawing of a Chinese dragon under a bright red sun. The dragon has a snake-like body and four legs with claws. By Eman M. Elshaikh The long-lived Qing dynasty ruled over a massive multi-ethnic empire as it experienced a period of economic prosperity in the eighteenth century. Introduction As a student, you've probably had to follow a dress code—rules about your clothing and grooming. In most cases, breaking these rules would get you into trouble with the school principal. When Manchu rulers came to power during the Qing dynasty (1644–1912 CE) in China, they imposed their own kind of dress code. All men had to style their hair in a very particular way: the front of the head was shaved, and the rest of the hair was pleated into a long braid running down the back. The Manchu, an ethnic minority in China, had to enforce this rule upon the majority Han Chinese, for whom this was a foreign custom. We're not sure what your principal does if you break the dress code, but if the Manchu rulers saw you in the wrong haircut, you could be executed for treason. Illustration of six Chinese men conversing. Each man’s hair is pulled back into one long braid that reaches their low backs. Illustration depicting Manchu hairstyles, called queues. By Internet Archive Book Images. No restrictions. Illustration of six Chinese men conversing. Each man’s hair is pulled back into one long braid that reaches their low backs. Illustration depicting Manchu hairstyles, called queues. By Internet Archive Book Images. No restrictions. What's so important about a hairstyle? How you dressed, groomed, and in some cases shaped your body really mattered in Qing China. But these weren't playful fashion statements. These variations were more like uniforms because they differentiated people along ethnic, class, and gender lines. For instance, Manchu women were not permitted to bind their feet, whereas upper-class Han Chinese women maintained this custom. Even some common Han women bound their feet and continued to labor in the home and farm1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript. But these distinctions generally collapsed over time, with Manchu and Han women living similar lives. Across ethnic groups, women largely worked domestically if they could afford to stay at home. Confucian values reinforced the idea that women should be obedient to their male family members. As we'll see, Qing China was a diverse and complex society, with many ethnic groups, social classes, and political actors playing a part in the formation of modern China. The Manchu Qing, who were seen as foreign by many of the Han Chinese, had to make their government feel more legitimate. So, they enforced hair and clothing standards to create a sense of unity and be a part of Chinese culture. A multi-ethnic empire By the eighteenth century, the Qing dynasty ruled over a vast territory, from Mongolia to Tibet to Xinjiang in Central Asia. During the eighteenth century, partly because of the influx of New World crops like potatoes and peanuts, the population doubled. In addition to these staple crops, farmers were also producing cash crops like tea. It was a time of prosperity, and farmers, artisans, craftspeople, and merchants participated in a lively trade network both domestically and abroad. But this huge country wasn't really on the same page economically, culturally, or ethnically. Across this massive stretch of land and the large population, many different communities maintained their own traditions and ways of life. So how did the Qing rule over this huge country and keep it unified? For starters, it had a really strong centralized government, led by an absolute monarch, the emperor. But the emperor also had a well-organized political structure backing him up. The Qing maintained a Ming-era political system. By not changing too much too fast, they were able to maintain Chinese unity. Under this political system, the emperor ruled over the Grand Secretariat (administrative office), which coordinated multiple imperial ministries. Over time, the Qing emperor centralized the control of these ministries in his inner court by bringing it under an imperial advisory council, which was made up of a special group of high officials. The Qing also kept the civil service system of the Ming, using the imperial examination system to vet officials. The Qing appointed officials from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, though some things were divided along ethnic lines. While the Qing themselves were Manchu, they strategically integrated the Han and even the Mongols into government. Han elites, or those who had passed state examinations, were brought into the imperial center as civil bureaucrats or military leaders. This provided some ethnic cohesion. Map of East Asia with the borders of the expansive Qing dynasty highlighted in yellow. Qing dynasty of China in 1765. Public Domain. Map of East Asia with the borders of the expansive Qing dynasty highlighted in yellow. Qing dynasty of China in 1765. Public Domain. The military had also become multi-ethnic. The early Qing organized their military using a banner system. Each banner, or administrative unit, had a particular function like taxation or recruiting soldiers. Initially, the banners were made up solely of Manchu warriors. Over time, the emperor allowed Han Chinese and Mongol banners as well, making the military multi-ethnic. Drawing of Chinese citizens kneeling as the emperor of the Qing dynasty enters the court on horseback, followed by an entourage of servants and advisors. Qianlong Emperor entering Suzhou and the Grand Canal. From a scroll depicting the 1751 Emperor's inspection tour of southern China. By Xu Wang, Public Domain. Drawing of Chinese citizens kneeling as the emperor of the Qing dynasty enters the court on horseback, followed by an entourage of servants and advisors. Qianlong Emperor entering Suzhou and the Grand Canal. From a scroll depicting the 1751 Emperor's inspection tour of southern China. By Xu Wang, Public Domain. The banner system basically created a special class of people, called bannermen. Membership was inherited, along with land and income. This system helped the Qing consolidate their power, and it continued to be an effective political tool through the eighteenth century. A yellow and red banner depicting a Chinese dragon with a snake-like body and four legs with claws. The Bordered Yellow Banner was one of the Eight Banners of the Manchu Qing dynasty military. It was among the three "upper" banner armies under the direct command of the emperor himself. By Sodacan ,CC BY-SA 4.0. A yellow and red banner depicting a Chinese dragon with a snake-like body and four legs with claws. The Bordered Yellow Banner was one of the Eight Banners of the Manchu Qing dynasty military. It was among the three "upper" banner armies under the direct command of the emperor himself. By Sodacan ,CC BY-SA 4.0. Toward the end of the century, the banner system started to fall apart. The bannermen became less disciplined and less effective, and the system was too expensive. The ethnic aspect of the banner system also started to change. In the eighteenth century, many Han bannermen were asked to leave the banners in order to restore a Manchu majority. Though the Han and other ethnic groups still remained part of the banner system, the banners eventually came to represent Manchu identity. A managed economy The Qing also used their imperial power to influence the economy, which flourished throughout the eighteenth century. Farming was vital to the government for providing economic growth and stability. The economy revolved around farming villages and towns, rather than major urban centers. Qing leaders promoted agriculture by encouraging people to settle new land and by providing seeds, livestock, and tax breaks. Farmers created productive agricultural colonies throughout the country, especially at the edges. Soon Qing society was an agricultural powerhouse. Painting of a crowded waterway that is bustling with commercial rowboats. Detail of Prosperous Suzhou, an eighteenth-century scroll painting by court painter Xu Yang commissioned by Emperor Qianlong. The large painting depicts the bustling urban life of Suzhou. In this section of the painting, Xu Yang shows busy commercial activity in China’s waterways. Public Domain. Painting of a crowded waterway that is bustling with commercial rowboats. Detail of Prosperous Suzhou, an eighteenth-century scroll painting by court painter Xu Yang commissioned by Emperor Qianlong. The large painting depicts the bustling urban life of Suzhou. In this section of the painting, Xu Yang shows busy commercial activity in China’s waterways. Public Domain. But all this farming didn't diminish commercial activity. In fact, Qing China was arguably one of the most commercialized countries at the time. During this period, farmers started producing surplus and selling goods. Trade between villages and regions developed into a robust network, creating the growth of bustling towns like Suzhou. Domestic trade boomed, and merchant guilds were established to facilitate it. As a result, the merchant class, who were traditionally looked down upon in Confucian thought, grew much larger and became powerful both socially and politically. Qing rulers were wary of this, and they tried to limit the power of wealthy merchants by instituting some restrictions on trade and industry. Though domestic trade moved in all directions, foreign trade was pretty one-sided. Qing China had an incredibly favorable balance of trade with Western countries, meaning China exported way more than it imported. The most important foreign good China imported was not a good at all but a currency: silver, to be exact. As China exported goods, silver flooded the Chinese market. The Qing had a very restrictive trade policy with the West, but they had looser agreements with their Russian, Central Asian, and Southeast Asian neighbors. Western trade was regulated under the Canton system that developed in the eighteenth century. It said Westerners could trade only in Canton harbor (today's Guangzhou) and only with approved Chinese guilds. This system helped regulate foreign trade, and it also enriched the members of these select guilds—some becoming the richest men in the world. Other coastal cities were depopulated, making this particular harbor the locus of foreign trade. Painting of boats anchored outside a Chinese harbor with the flags of Denmark, Spain, the US, Sweden, Britain, and the Netherlands being flown from the shore. The Thirteen Factories c. 1805, displaying the flags of Denmark, Spain, the United States, Sweden, Britain, and the Netherlands Canton (Guangzhou). Public Domain. Painting of boats anchored outside a Chinese harbor with the flags of Denmark, Spain, the US, Sweden, Britain, and the Netherlands being flown from the shore. The Thirteen Factories c. 1805, displaying the flags of Denmark, Spain, the United States, Sweden, Britain, and the Netherlands Canton (Guangzhou). Public Domain. Qing China in context During this age of prosperity, China's workforce grew. Laborers and merchants spread outward in search of economic opportunities. The workforce migrated between China's many distant regions, and also outside of China. Many Chinese traveled overseas, mostly to Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia was controlled by several different states, many of which were mired in political turmoil. Though parts of the region had some kind of centralized state in control, much of the rest of Southeast Asia was managed by looser political structures. Some scholars have described these as "solar polities," (a polity is a state) where a strong urban center exerts a gravitational pull on the surrounding areas. As a result, many semi-independent tributaries were under partial control of powerful city-states. Through trade and migrant labor, Qing China also had power in the region. The most active ports of trade in the region were in modern-day Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia, where Qing Chinese migrants and merchants moved across regional networks. Map of Southeast Asia that shows the division of the region into several different states and kingdoms. Territorial divisions in mainland Southeast Asia c.1750 CE. By Nicolas Eynaud, CC BY-SA 4.0. Map of Southeast Asia that shows the division of the region into several different states and kingdoms. Territorial divisions in mainland Southeast Asia c.1750 CE. By Nicolas Eynaud, CC BY-SA 4.0. From its start, the Qing ruled over a massive and multi-ethnic empire, including Manchus, Han Chinese, Mongols, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and numerous other groups. Despite challenges, the eighteenth century was a time of prosperity and relative peace, with an ethnic minority unifying China under its control for nearly three centuries! [Notes] Author bio Eman M. Elshaikh is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences, focusing on history and anthropology. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the author, what are the things that make it hard to study sub-Saharan Africa as a region, and why might we do so anyway?What kinds of government systems existed in sub-Saharan Africa c. 1750, according to the author?What sorts of communities and identities were important in sub-Saharan Africa at this time?According to the article, what were some ways in which sub-African societies participated in production and trade in this period?According to the author, what was the biggest threat to African societies in this era, and how was it changing them? ##Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on the evidence in this article, what aspects of sub-Saharan African societies in 1750 seem unique or distinctive, and what aspects seem to be part of a wider global pattern?If you could ask the author for one more piece of information about sub-Saharan Africa in 1750 – that isn’t included in this article – what would it to be? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Sub-Saharan Africa in 1750 Drawing of an empty throne with people lined up on either side dancing and playing music. At the foot of the throne is a pillow with three rings, a small pouch, and a crown. Trevor Getz We often think of Africa in 1750 as either a wilderness of “tribes” or an unspoiled paradise. In reality, this vast continent was a patchwork of large states, confederations, and independent communities. They were tied to each other and to other continents by complex networks of trade and exchange. What is "sub-Saharan Africa"? In this unit, you have been reading about vast single states like the Ottoman Empire and Qing Dynasty, as well as regions made up of many small states, like Europe in 1750. In this article, we are looking at sub-Saharan Africa, a region that (even without North Africa) is about three times the size of Europe, but that was similarly made up of many, small states. Now, let's consider how Africa is often described. We normally place Africa into neat categories, seeing it as either populated by bands and "tribes" on the one hand, or under foreign, colonial rule, on the other. But the history of sub-Saharan Africa around 1750 does not fit these categories. In this era, the continent was not covered by hunter-gatherer bands or tribes. Some foraging communities still existed. But that way of life had not been dominant across the continent for over a thousand years. Yet this was also not yet the era of colonial domination. In fact, Europeans controlled very little of the continent. Instead, this was an era of great diversity. This vast and populous continent had many different types of societies, from small, independent villages to vast, centralized states. Map of sub-Saharan Africa with the borders of individual states highlighted in different colors. Map of sub-Saharan Africa, 2007. By WHP, CC BY-NC 4.0. Map of sub-Saharan Africa with the borders of individual states highlighted in different colors. Map of sub-Saharan Africa, 2007. By WHP, CC BY-NC 4.0. But if sub-Saharan African societies were so diverse in this era, why is it useful to study them together? Historians have traditionally placed all of this region in one bucket. They imagined the people were all closely related – "black Africans". But in fact, this region's genetic diversity was greater than that of all the rest of the world combined. This is because Africa is the ancestral homeland of all humans. Because only a small set of our African ancestors left for other regions, most genetic diversity remained in Africa. Sub-Saharan African societies also had diverse cultures. Yet there were some big connections between many of them that make it logical to study them together. In particular, there were societies across the middle of the continent that shared Bantu-speaking languages and culture. Also, historically, it made sense to study this region together because it had three outside barriers that limited interaction with the rest of the world. These three barriers were the Atlantic and Indian Oceans to the west and east, and the Sahara Desert to the north. But by 1750, all three of the great barriers separating sub-Saharan Africa from other regions had turned into great trading zones. Caravans traversed the Sahara, and ships crisscrossed the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. Millions of Africans had migrated – willingly or not – across them. People from Europe and Asia had also come to live in Africa to some degree. African societies in different regions were affected by these vast trading networks. Internally, few Africans at this time felt especially connected to people in other parts of the continent, just as very few people in Europe in 1750 thought of themselves as "European." Similarly, very few people in this zone thought of themselves as African! They instead tended to think of themselves based on their religious, state, or community identities. So, does it make sense to study this region together? Maybe, because there were several shared experiences that characterize this large region around 1750. African communities and states, c.1750 Many different communities lived in sub-Saharan Africa around 1750. We should discuss them first. Some communities were quite small and egalitarian (people were considered mostly equal). There was little difference between rich and poor and only limited political structures. The Khoisan in southern Africa were a group who tended to live in relatively egalitarian groups. Unfortunately for them, they were located quite close to the Cape of Good Hope. This was an area of early European settlement. As a result, they suffered from diseases that Europeans brought with them. They were also persecuted and enslaved. By 1750, many Khoisan bands nearest European settlement had been wiped out, had become enslaved, or had been forced to move. Other communities were larger and more formally organized, but lacked a single head or leader. Igbo communities, in the south of what is today Nigeria, were an example. Igbo society didn't really have "chiefs" or "kings" at this time. Instead, they tended to be governed by councils in each village. Several villages often tied together into confederations that helped each other. Instead of wanting to become "chief", wealthy Igbo men competed to become "nobles." These titles were bestowed upon them by the collective community. Becoming a noble gave a person honor, if not necessarily power to rule. It could be achieved partly by giving away great wealth to the community. This tended, again, to reinforce some equality of wealth across the community. Of course, some sub-Saharan African societies took the form of large, centralized states. One of these was Kongo. Here wealthy, powerful ruling families displayed their wealth in fine clothing and goods much like in the court of European rulers at the time. But cultural rules against greed tended to keep individual wealth in check. Moreover, by 1750, Kongo was suffering from the effects of the Atlantic slave trade, which tended to break down large states. Photo of three traditional, hand-carved African masks. Each mask is painted in shades of brown, white, and black and contain different geometric designs.BaKongo masks, Kongo region. By Ndoto ya Afrika, CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo of three traditional, hand-carved African masks. Each mask is painted in shades of brown, white, and black and contain different geometric designs. BaKongo masks, Kongo region. By Ndoto ya Afrika, CC BY-SA 3.0. Social identity within and between societies Within the Kongolese society, the culture limited individual wealth. This was also true of many other African communities. For many, wealth and authority were held by the family. Many sub-Saharan African societies emphasized kinship (membership in the family) as an important value and identity. This could mean that people who did not have families, or whose families had fallen apart, were vulnerable. However, kinship in these societies was often assimilative. This means that new people (sometimes including enslaved people who were purchased) could become "adopted" as members over time. Religion was another important marker of identity. Local religions tied people to each other, to ancestors, and to the land in many cases. Christianity and Islam had long histories in Africa. They both played an important part in how and with whom people connected. In northeast Africa, especially Ethiopia, Christianity was an important part of individual daily experience. It also helped connect people to the Ethiopian kings and to each other through a system of priests and monasteries. But Islam was probably numerically the largest religion in Africa at this time. In West Africa, Islam was slowly turning from a religion of rulers to a religion of peasants. In fact, some forms of Islamic brotherhoods were helping peasants to band together with each other against slave raiders and the threat of encroachment by Europeans. In East Africa, Islam was very much a religion of trade. It connected Africans along the coast to Muslims in Arabia and India in a vast trading network. Production and trade Trade was very important to sub-Saharan Africa in this period. Long trading routes connected people from the interior to the coast. They exchanged different goods, including some imported from outside of the region. A common currency across much of the region helped. This currency was the cowrie shell, a seashell that was valuable because it was rare, much like gold today. Iron was another currency. Instead of long caravans travelling along these trade routes, different people would carry goods back and forth in short intervals before selling them to the next person along the route. Photo of a caravan of camels walking through the desert with bags of goods strapped to their backs.Caravan in the Sahara, Morocco, 2013. By Sergey Pesterev, CC BY-SA 4.0. Photo of a caravan of camels walking through the desert with bags of goods strapped to their backs. Caravan in the Sahara, Morocco, 2013. By Sergey Pesterev, CC BY-SA 4.0. Trade also crossed the three "oceans". The Sahara Desert was considered an ocean of sand. The two other oceans were the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Much of the trade that crossed here was luxury goods. It included hunted products like ivory, some mined metals, and spices grown in large plantations, especially along the East African coast. Of course, there was also a great trade in enslaved people from Africa. Slavery in 1750 was quite common in many parts of the world. Africans were enslaved for purchase in North Africa and Arabia as well as in the Americas. The Atlantic slave trade was managed by European corporations. It was larger and more highly organized than anything that had come before. In just the 50 years leading up to 1750, more than two and a half million Africans had been enslaved through this system. This, of course, had an enormous impact on the continent. It had a particular impact in small regions that were intensively enslaved, like Igbo communities and the area around Kongo. The economic impact was an immediate decrease in productivity. Many workers (especially the most productive young people) were taken away overseas. It also had a political impact. The wars and kidnappings collapsed many African states into anarchy. In other regions, autocratic warlords arose. These powerful men could protect their people. They did this partly by raiding others to enslave them for sale to Europeans in exchange for guns and ammunition. In this way, the slave trade introduced warlordism (rule by powerful individuals rather than complex systems and groups) into many regions of Africa. Of course, most people in Africa in this period remained farmers. They produced food for themselves and some surplus for sale. Many of them were untouched by the slave trade or the beginnings of European settlement and colonialism. Still, parts of Africa in 1750 were already suffering from the ill effects of this system. It would go on to hurt the continent's productivity and stability for the next centuries. Author bio Trevor Getz is a professor of African and world history at San Francisco State University. He has been the author or editor of 11 books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and has coproduced several prize-winning documentaries. Trevor is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How were most things made around 1750? Who made them, and in what kinds of situations?What groups of people didn’t make physical objects?The author suggests this was an “Asian Age”. What does that mean?The article suggests that Europeans were coming to dominate shipping by this period. Why was that the case, according to the author? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article suggests that Asia was producing most of the important goods in this period, and that Europeans were coming to dominate shipping. Which of these positions (doing a lot of producing vs. doing a lot of shipping) would you predict would be more valuable? Why? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Production and Distribution in 1750 Engraving of three Italian men working in a factory. Each man has a long, metal rod that they use to tend to a hot furnace containing molten glass. Trevor Getz In 1750, the way humans made and moved stuff was very different from today. The point-and-click style was still a long way off, but new production methods and trade routes were still a major update. The stuff we needed People in 1750 had fewer possessions than we do today. In fact, most of the world's population got by with hardly any material goods. They still needed food and drink, of course – probably more since, in the days before tractors, farmers needed about twice the calories we need to get through the work day. In addition to clothing – made from cotton, wool, leather, flax, or silk – they needed metal tools, pots to cook in or store food, candles for light, fuel to burn, and lots of other stuff. Some could afford luxuries, such fancy clothes and food, jewelry, fans, books, art, and new inventions like watches. Who made all of this stuff? Who consumed it? How did it get from where it was produced to where it was used? Comprehensive answers to these questions would fill several books, and you don't have that kind of time in a one- year class! The good news is that we can at least outline some big patterns that will give you a sense of where things stood with production and distribution in 1750. Who made stuff? In 1750, the Industrial Revolution had just begun… sorta. In Britain, people were building a few inefficient steam- powered machines to do work. But for almost everyone in Britain and the rest of the world, production was still pre-industrial. What does this mean? First, most things were made by families, which were the primary economic unit of the age. Families – often large and extended – pooled their labor and shared the things they made. Mostly they made food for themselves. Nearly everyone was a farmer, a pastoralist (animal herder), or a bit of both. Some people hunted or fished to feed their family. They mostly had basic hand-tools and maybe a plow pulled by oxen, and they mostly made the stuff they needed on a day-to-day basis. Woven mats, wooden bowls, even houses were made by the people using and living in them. Families sometimes produced extra food or goods to sell in town – work that was often done by women. Many worked together on small mines or in rivers to pull out metal and other materials to make luxury goods that could be sold, if on a pretty small scale. There were some big farms that produced food – either for their own consumption or to be sold as cash crops – and were worked by large groups of laborers. In some places, these workers were paid for their labor. More often, as was frequently the case in Russia and eastern Europe, they worked because they owed some labor to an aristocratic landowner. Sometimes they worked together on community-owned land that was shared. In most of the European colonies in the Americas, and elsewhere, the workers were neither free nor paid. They were enslaved people doing forced labor. Some goods, of course, required special skills to produce. These were things made of cloth, leather, metal, stone, as well as paper, ceramics, herbs and healing technologies. Also there was a whole host of other specialty goods that needed specialists to produce them. They were artisans. Instead of making food, they applied their skills and special tools to make things in exchange for payment. They would buy food, instead of growing their own like most people. In many places, like South Asia and West Africa, artisans inherited their jobs from their parents. So if you were a blacksmith's son, your career path most likely led straight to blacksmith. In many places, people believed that these non-food job were mystical or dangerous. That meant specialists earned the reverence of some, and the suspicion of others. In most of Europe, for example, healers were often seen as being not far removed from witches and warlocks. Separate from these groups were the managers, traders, and other professionals like lawyers and clerks. These people often had greater wealth, but not always higher status. Being a merchant in 1750's China, for example, was not necessarily a high-status job. Priests got much more respect. Very few people had these specialty jobs. Similarly, only a few people were rulers or aristocrats, whose job was to make decisions. Painting of a Chinese artisan sitting in a bamboo chair as he puts silk thread onto spindles.Chinese watercolor showing silk production, c. 1750-1800. A silk-maker was an artisan who used special tools to produce something that could be sold or traded. By Art and Architecture Collection, public domain. Painting of a Chinese artisan sitting in a bamboo chair as he puts silk thread onto spindles. Chinese watercolor showing silk production, c. 1750-1800. A silk-maker was an artisan who used special tools to produce something that could be sold or traded. By Art and Architecture Collection, public domain. Most of the goods being produced were handmade by individuals working alone. In a few places, there were manufactories where large groups of people produced complex products together, playing different roles in the process. These weren't true factories in the modern sense, and usually didn't have machines. But whether it was porcelain production in China, or sugar production in the Caribbean, these manufactories hinted at the assembly lines and smokestacks that industrialization would soon bring. Where was stuff going? In 1750, the world was passing through an "Asian Age". In other words, for hundreds of years, the most valuable stuff in the world – luxury products and consumer goods – was made in Asia. Chinese ceramics and silk, South Asian (Indian) cloth, tea from both places, and spices and gems from Southeast Asia were all immensely desirable. Asia was the workshop of the world, turning out massive amounts of goods for sale. Trade routes, many of them thousands of years old, took these goods west across the Islamic world and into Europe and Africa. Some of these trade routes went overland across Central Asia, following the ancient set of routes we know today as the Silk Road. Others went by sea across the Indian Ocean. But two big changes were shifting global trade patterns. The first was the European colonization of the Americas. The second was Europe's new purchasing power for Asian goods, because a large group of Europeans were now gaining wealth from their American colonies. In particular, colonies in Mexico and Bolivia produced huge amounts of silver. While gold was in higher demand, silver still had value in Europe. But in Asia, whose vast populations ran on silver economies, silver was extremely desired. Suddenly China, India, and much of Asia were willing to sell their luxury and consumer goods to Europeans in exchange for silver, and this silver-for-goods trading system is what connected the world. Silver was mined in the Americas – by enslaved or coerced labor – then sent to either the Philippines or Europe before going on to Asia, where it was exchanged for goods that Europeans wanted. Map of the world depicting sea routes used by the Spanish for trade. 16th century Portuguese and Spanish trade routes. Public domain. Map of the world depicting sea routes used by the Spanish for trade. 16th century Portuguese and Spanish trade routes. Public domain. One of the things that Europeans bought with their silver was cloth from South Asia, a massive trade system in its own right. They took this cloth to Africa, where it was traded for African ivory and gold, at first. Later, though, South Asian cloth would be used to buy enslaved people, who were then forcibly taken to the Americas. There, the enslaved generated more wealth for European merchants. Some labored in silver mines. Most, however, worked on plantations producing other luxury goods – especially tobacco and sugar – for Europeans who could afford them. Indigenous Americans and European hunters and trappers traded other luxury goods from the Americas, especially furs and timber. American luxuries such as sugar, tobacco, and furs were sent back to Europe, where they were sold or exchanged for Asian luxury goods. By 1750, European ships carried much of the world's trade. Well, the ships were European, but many of the sailors were African, Asian, indigenous American, or Polynesian. Europeans dominated shipping for a few reasons. Geographically, Europe's long coastlines motivated the development of ship-building and navigation technologies. So they put those technologies in action in their drive to get access to Asian luxury goods. When they obtained access to the great forests of the Americas, whose lumber was for perfect for shipbuilding, they had an even greater advantage. Much of Europe – and Eurasia in general – had been deforested by 1750. The great European naval fleets were built by American wood. Finally, in their desire for foreign goods, and possessing large amounts of American silver, Europeans had developed a really sophisticated financial system. Their banks, insurance companies, and investment systems would later create what we call the "capitalist" system. These new financial innovations helped European merchants pool their money to pay for expensive ships. Painting of two ships belonging to the English and Dutch as they enter a port city to trade goods.Dutch East India Company trading post, Gombroon, Persia, 1704. These kinds of posts were markets, military forts, and banks all in one! Public domain. Painting of two ships belonging to the English and Dutch as they enter a port city to trade goods. Dutch East India Company trading post, Gombroon, Persia, 1704. These kinds of posts were markets, military forts, and banks all in one! Public domain. Conclusions: More stuff Today, it seems obvious that the world was about to enter a "European Age" soon after 1750, and that European and Euro-American economies would dominate for two centuries. But the 1750 people didn't see things that way. South and East Asia were still producing most of the luxury and consumer products. Other than silver, European goods weren't in demand. Sure, European shipping dominated the seas, but overland trade routes through Central Asia were still pretty important. Similarly, nobody foresaw that the way everyone worked and made stuff was about to go through a major transformation. There were no real factories in 1750. The few powered machines were very interesting, but not efficient enough to look like the future of production – but they were. The finest things were still handmade by individual artisans. Industrialization wasn't even really a word yet. Yet in the years to come, this word would name one of the biggest watersheds in world history. Author bio Trevor Getz is a professor of African and world history at San Francisco State University. He has been the author or editor of 11 books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and has coproduced several prize-winning documentaries. Trevor is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Looking at the map, what do you notice about internal trade in Japan, and what does it tell you about the geography of the country?What groups or classes of people were the most important supporters of Tokugawa rule, according to the article?Unlike empires, Japan was mainly ethnically and religiously homogeneous (one community identity) in 1750, but it had lots of different classes. How did the Shoguns keep order in this situation?According to the article, what were Tokugawa attitudes towards global trade and foreign ideas?According to the author, how successful were the Tokugawa shoguns, and how should we measure that success? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on the evidence in this article, what aspects of Japan in 1750 seem unique or distinctive, and what aspects seem to be part of a wider global pattern?If you could ask the author for one more piece of information about Japan under the Tokugawa shoguns—that isn’t included in this article—what would it be? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Tokugawa Shogunate Painting of a Japanese castle that is walled-off and surrounded by a moat. Japanese samurai are depicted training inside the castle grounds along with other government officials and citizens. By Eman M. Elshaikh The Tokugawa Shogunate brought order and unity to Japan by carefully managing social hierarchies and foreign contact. It was a rare case of peaceful rule by military leaders. A unified Japan Japan may just appear as a series of islands off the east coast of the Eurasian landmass, but these islands are really big and have been thickly populated for many centuries. If you took a snapshot of Japan in 1750, you would see a prosperous country unified under a stable, centralized government. This government, called the Tokugawa Shogunate (1600-1868)1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript , was led by a military ruler, called a shogun, with the help of a class of military lords, called daimyō. True, Japan was led by military elite, yet it was still a time of relative peace and stability. Painting of a Japanese shogun dressed in black robes and sitting cross-legged on an ornate carpet while holding a traditional Japanese paper fan. A Portrait of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the first Tokugawa Shogun, who unified Japan and established Edo (present-day Tokyo) as the main capital. By Kanō Tan’yū, public domain. Painting of a Japanese shogun dressed in black robes and sitting cross-legged on an ornate carpet while holding a traditional Japanese paper fan. A Portrait of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the first Tokugawa Shogun, who unified Japan and established Edo (present-day Tokyo) as the main capital. By Kanō Tan’yū, public domain. The shoguns maintained stability in many ways, including regulating trade, agriculture, foreign relations, and even religion. The political structure was stronger than in centuries before because the Tokugawa shoguns tended to pass power down dynastically from father to son. They also moved away from the past—quite literally—by relocating from the old center of imperial power in Kyoto to establish a new capital. They called it Edo, but you're probably more familiar with its other name: Tokyo. Before the shoguns made it their political seat, it was just a small coastal fishing village. Painting of the city of Edo from a bird’s eye view. The detailed map contains paintings of the walled-off Edo Castle as well as the mountainous terrain, other city structures, and the ocean port where ships can come in. A view of the Tokugawa capital of Edo during the seventeenth century. Public domain. Painting of the city of Edo from a bird’s eye view. The detailed map contains paintings of the walled-off Edo Castle as well as the mountainous terrain, other city structures, and the ocean port where ships can come in. A view of the Tokugawa capital of Edo during the seventeenth century. Public domain. In this new capital, the shoguns created carefully planned systems to keep a tight grip on power. The shoguns required the daimyō to pledge loyalty to the shogunate (the shogun's administration) and maintain residences at the capital — which they had to live in every other year. This was a big move—again, literally—because the provincial military lords already had large residences back home in the provinces. This arrangement served a few purposes. It kept the daimyō close, and the daimyō had to leave their families in the imperial residences when they were out in the provinces. That kind of made their families hostages of the shogunate, but super comfortable ones. Traveling back and forth and keeping up two residences cost the daimyō a lot and kept them busy, making it harder for them to challenge imperial power. The shogunate itself was established by a powerful group of daimyō, so they knew exactly how to prevent the daimyō from rebelling. Even back in the provinces, the daimyōs' power was shaken up. The shoguns reorganized their fiefdoms (domains) so they couldn't necessarily rely on old ties and established patterns of power. And within those newly arranged fiefdoms, they had to implement administrative systems. They had to direct resources, including taxes, from their provinces to the capital. Daimyō also served as administrative officials, in both the capital and the provinces. They were supported by samurai (military officers). In this new power structure, the emperor — though technically the top official, and the one who appointed the shogun — had pretty limited power. The shoguns also cemented their power by taking charge of the country's production and distribution. And it worked, because under the Tokugawa, agriculture and commerce thrived. In the rural areas, they put improved farming techniques into place. They also used land surveys to track and improve farming production, ensuring a stable food supply. City life also flourished, helped by the building of a robust highway network connecting the provinces with the capital. That helped the daimyō travel back and forth and move resources between the provinces and the capital. During this time, the Japanese population soared. Map of Japan with colored lines representing the land and sea routes used during the Tokugawa Shogunate. A map of the most important land and sea routes during the Tokugawa Shogunate. By Elien Bollen, CC BY-SA 4.0. Map of Japan with colored lines representing the land and sea routes used during the Tokugawa Shogunate. A map of the most important land and sea routes during the Tokugawa Shogunate. By Elien Bollen, CC BY-SA 4.0. Society under the Tokugawa Shogunate The Tokugawa Shogunate was notable for restoring order and unity to Japan, and it did this partly through upholding strict social hierarchies. This was in some ways influenced by the Confucian idea that society was made up of four social classes. From the top-down, they were: warrior, farmer, artisan, and merchant. The shogun, daimyō, and samurai were the warrior class. Each class had its own function, and each was thought to contribute to social order. Different classes tended to live in different parts of the cities and villages, and the warrior class did not mix much with the other classes. Also, geographic and social mobility was pretty limited; peasants even had to ask permission to move or travel. The Japanese Confucian philosopher Ogyō Sorai (1666-1724) described this system like this: “The peasant cultivates the fields and so nourishes the people; the artisan makes utensils and has the people use them; the merchant exchanges what one has for what one has not and so helps the people; the samurai rules so that disorders will not arise. Though each performs only his own job, he is helping the other.” The contributions of the warriors and farmers were seen as the most important. Farmers were valued more than artisans because food was essential. Merchants were seen as parasites because they produced nothing, and money dealings were immoral according to Confucian thought. Painting depicting the arrival of hundreds of Japanese daimyo as they cross over a bridge into the city of Edo. Here we see daimyō arriving in great numbers for a festival at Edo. Public domain. Painting depicting the arrival of hundreds of Japanese daimyo as they cross over a bridge into the city of Edo. Here we see daimyō arriving in great numbers for a festival at Edo. Public domain. Although rigid in principle, the social hierarchy didn't always work in practice. Restrictions on movement were not enforced consistently. Some samurai were very poor, whereas some merchants were able to build huge fortunes and gain political power. Also, peasant revolts, though they were usually brutally suppressed, kept the power of the elite in check to some extent. Some recent scholarship has shown that peasants may even have forced daimyō to lower taxes. There were also many people who didn't fit into any group. Imperial figures like the emperor were above the warrior class in theory, but not in reality. Artists and intellectuals didn't fit into any class, and there were people on the margins of society who were seen as even lower than merchants. For example, butchers or executioners, who were seen as dealing with impure things, were treated like outcasts. Women's lives and the family structure were also influenced by Confucian ideals. They emphasized filial piety, or respect for elders and ancestors. Women were expected to be submissive to their male family members. As women had more children and got older, they gained more power in their households. But women's lives were really different across social classes. Peasant women, for example, often worked alongside their male family members in the fields, and gender distinctions were looser for them. Among the lower classes, women could more easily divorce and have relationships outside of marriage than upper-class women, for whom marriage was often part of important political alliances. Men of all classes were generally freer than women to have relationships outside of marriage. Was Japan a “closed country?” Many historians describe Japan during this period as isolationist, meaning closed to the outside world. While that's kind of true, we shouldn't overstate it. Japanese leadership was certainly concerned with outside influence, namely Christian missionaries from Spain and Portugal. In the sixteenth century, many Japanese had converted to Christianity, which Japanese rulers thought upset the social order. As a result, several shoguns prohibited Christianity and strictly punished it. They required everyone to register with Buddhist temples, which were monitored and regulated by the government. The shoguns also restricted foreign trade, because they wanted to curb foreign influence and exploitation. They felt that foreign trade might disrupt the flow of resources they had established. Most European trade was not permitted. The Protestant Dutch, who did not want to send missionaries like the Catholic Spanish and Portuguese, were allowed to trade from a specific port in Nagasaki Harbor under strict Japanese supervision Painting of a port city surrounded by mountains with three small ships just off the shore. Nagasaki, with two Dutch flags flying over tiny Deshima island where the Dutch East India Company had its factory. Public domain. Painting of a port city surrounded by mountains with three small ships just off the shore. Nagasaki, with two Dutch flags flying over tiny Deshima island where the Dutch East India Company had its factory. Public domain. But just because Japan restricted trade with Europe doesn't mean it was closed. They traded plenty with their Korean and Chinese neighbors, with whom they had regular diplomatic relations. For example, the Tokugawa shoguns regularly sent ambassadors to meet with Korea's Joseon dynasty rulers, and Korea reciprocated on some occasions. The Japanese were also a lot more open to cultural exchange with their Asian neighbors than with Europeans. Painting of a diplomatic procession through the streets of a Japanese city. Citizens line the sidewalk as the diplomatic officials walk by in two single-file lines. A Joseon diplomatic procession through the streets of Edo in 1748 is entitled Chōsen-jin Uki-e by Hanegawa Tōei, c. 1748. By Hanegawa Tōei, public domain. Painting of a diplomatic procession through the streets of a Japanese city. Citizens line the sidewalk as the diplomatic officials walk by in two single-file lines. A Joseon diplomatic procession through the streets of Edo in 1748 is entitled Chōsen-jin Uki-e by Hanegawa Tōei, c. 1748. By Hanegawa Tōei, public domain. The beginnings of change That said, the Japanese did interact with European cultural ideas, too. Even though European books were restricted for some time, many Japanese intellectuals used Dutch sources to help expand their bodies of knowledge, particularly in the fields of science and technology. The Japanese economy gradually transformed in response to global forces. Despite cultural ideas that money was immoral, it did become much more central to Japanese life. This affected the incomes of government officials, who had been paid in fixed amounts of rice. Trade, industry, and banking grew, and the merchant class gained power. Government reforms also had major effects including revaluing the currency, regulating money exchanges, changing the tax system, and forming merchant guilds. Overall, while the Japanese did guard their society and economy against outside influences, they certainly participated in trade and cultural exchange. Though the shoguns sought to manage these exchanges, restrictions loosened over time. Meanwhile, they generally managed a society whose standard of living was extremely high for the time, whether compared to nearby states or to European societies. For over two centuries, they maintained this standard of living and avoided major warfare—a surprising feat for a country ruled by military lords. [Notes] Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How and why did Qing Shih get to Guangzhou?What was Guangzhou like in 1775, according to the author?How did Qing Shih become a pirate queen?How did Qing Shih strengthen the pirate confederacy? What policies did she pursue?The artist shows Qing Shih at the edge or towards the back of panels at the beginning of the biography, but by the end she is in the middle and front of each panel. What message is she giving through this placement? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: It’s early in the course, but you’ve already learned a little about China, and you’ve been introduced to the three frames. Thinking about the communities frame, does Qing Shih’s story support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about China in this unit? In other words, does it confirm what you know about communities in China (support)? Does it deepen what you already know (extend)? Or does it provide evidence that goes against what you’ve been told (challenge)? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Qing Shih (Graphic Biography) Writer: Lindsay Ehrisman Artist: Liz Clarke Qing Shih was a pirate queen in eighteenth-century southern China. Her life demonstrates the complexity of community, and networks, in this interconnected era. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How did most world history textbooks published before 1999 treat this region?Where did the indigenous people who settled the Pacific islands come from, and what technologies made possible the settlement of this region?How were Maori societies of New Zealand governed around 1750?What happened, politically, in Hawaii between about 1795 and 1810?What, according to the author, was the most important aspect of gender roles in this region?How do we know that these societies, which stretched across the Pacific, were connected to each other in networks of trade? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on the evidence presented in the article, how would you characterize this region through the networks frame? How would you characterize it through the communities frame? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Oceania and the Pacific in 1750 Photo of several gigantic stone heads lined up in a row, taken from across a grass field. By Trevor Getz The societies of the Pacific were a web of communities by 1750. Despite long distances and great diversity, they used sophisticated maritime technology to stay connected. Acknowledging Pacific history The Pacific Ocean is the world's largest body of water. It is dotted with lots of islands, especially in the region bordering Southeast Asia. Within the vast Pacific region is Oceania—which includes the continent of Australia, the two large islands that make up New Zealand, and a number of island groups known as Melanasia. A lot of this region was populated by humans as long as 40,000 years ago! You may have seen a representation of this process in the Disney film Moana, which depicts the historical movement of Polynesian peoples through the song "Know the Way", and also shows Moana herself navigating by the stars through a technology Pacific peoples pioneered over a thousand years. Photo of a large ship made entirely from planks of wood. Groups of workers line the boat’s hull, some with long, wooden poles in their hands.A sophisticated ocean-going ship docked in the Fiji Islands, 1886. From the Alinari Archives. Getty Images. Photo of a large ship made entirely from planks of wood. Groups of workers line the boat’s hull, some with long, wooden poles in their hands. A sophisticated ocean-going ship docked in the Fiji Islands, 1886. From the Alinari Archives. Getty Images. But here's a weird fact: Oceania, and the peoples of the Pacific, were often left out of world history textbooks until about 1999.1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript That was when two historians, both teaching at the University of Hawaii, wrote Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past. They were after all living in Hawaii, the long-standing Pacific society established by the Polynesian people. They knew that Hawaiians historically were part of a Pacific community that played a significant role in the human past. So, when they wrote their textbook, they made sure to acknowledge that history. The textbook became a bestseller, and they changed the way this region is studied in world history forever. Human geography of the Pacific, c. 1750 The Pacific Ocean was settled by humans over a long period probably beginning 60,000 to 40,000 years ago (scientists still argue about these numbers). This first wave of migrations was made possible by the development of large canoes that carried people from the coast of China, through the Philippines, and from Malaysia through Indonesia and to the coast of New Guinea. There, people developed sophisticated agricultural techniques and built densely populated communities. Some of these people also crossed the straits that separate New Guinea from Australia. Those who settled in Australia encountered a difficult and new set of environments, including widespread arid (dry) zones. Few plant or animal species in Australia could be domesticated, but the continent did have some large animals that could be hunted. For that reason, most of the communities of Australia remained primarily foragers (hunters and gatherers). Meanwhile, the societies of South East Asia and Taiwan, and the early settlers of the south Pacific, were together developing a whole range of technological innovations that slowly allowed them to travel deeper and deeper into the Pacific Ocean. The most important of these were navigational techniques that allowed them to read wind and ocean currents and locate themselves, as well as vast, sail-driven canoes to move them around. As a result, these peoples were able to gradually populate the islands of the Pacific region. Eventually, these communities formed three large groups, each made up of peoples who were geographically spread out but still related to each other by culture and language. These three groups each covered areas of the planet larger than most continents. The first was the Melanesian group, which made up the densely populated region of New Guinea and also a large number of pretty closely-packed islands from the Bismarcks to Fiji. North of Melanesia were the Micronesian group, based on somewhat more widespread islands including the Mariana and Marshall chains. Finally, to the east, the long-voyaging Polynesian people gradually populated very far-flung islands. At the geographic center of Polynesian society were the Cook and Society Islands. Larger communities were formed in the bigger Hawaiian chain and in New Zealand, where the Maori people spoke (and still speak) a Polynesian language. The furthest extent of Polynesian society was Easter Island, settled about 700 CE. Map of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Australia and New Zealand showing the cultural communities of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia along with the islands belonging to each. Cultural communities of the Pacific. Public domain. Map of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Australia and New Zealand showing the cultural communities of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia along with the islands belonging to each. Cultural communities of the Pacific. Public domain. Organizing communities and states In 1750, the Pacific was inhabited by a sizeable range of interconnected, culturally linked communities. The vast distances between many Polynesian islands meant that numerous societies were somewhat isolated, but there is evidence of ongoing trade for all of them. Other regions, like New Zealand and New Guinea, built up large communities that needed political and social organizations to manage a large population. To make decisions, most people in most communities in this region belonged to family groups, where a lot of the decisions were made. But in a number of societies, families were organized into bigger units such as clans and states. In 1750, the Maori society of Aotearoa (New Zealand) divided the land amongst several states, also called iwis. These were composed of a number of whanau, meaning families. Each state had several important chiefs, called rangatira and ariki, who came together in a collective decision-making group. Each iwi had its own power, but they all worked together. Still, as everywhere in the world, there was conflict both within and between the different Maori states. Prior to 1795, Hawaii was similarly organized into a series of small, rival kingdoms. In that year, however, the King of the island of Hawaii, Kamehameha I, managed to conquer the neighboring islands including the large island of O'ahu. He declared himself King of all Hawaii's islands, although Kaua'i held out until 1810. But these large-scale states were more the exception than the rule in this region, where the extended family, the village, and the clan were usually more important political institutions. Gender relations also varied widely among these communities. Women in Polynesian societies may have been closer to full equality with men than any other part of the world. They could certainly be very independent, and women whose families held royal or chiefly positions could often inherit authority. This was somewhat less true in other societies of the Pacific. But the most important aspect of gender roles in this region was the complementary relationship of men and women. In general, people in this part of the world believed that men and women each had their own spheres of influence and their own roles, and that both were needed for a family or community to be successful. This meant that men and women both exercised power, but in different ways, and they weren't really supposed to step outside of their roles.2^22squared Ideas about culture and politics were broadly shared, despite the diversity of these many societies, because the masterful technology developed by the people of the Pacific allowed them to continue to trade with each other across vast distances. An archaeological study set in the Cook Islands, for example, uncovered trade goods such as stone tools that came from islands as far as Samoa, 1,000 miles away, and the Marquesas, 1,500 miles away. These kinds of trading connections helped communities on various islands to keep up to date with new technology and to disperse rare goods like obsidian, a useful stone tool desired just as it was in the Americas. Photo of four pieces of obsidian that were once some kind of tool. The stones are black in color and have many jagged edges.Obsidian tools found on Easter Island. Many of the stone and obsidian tools found on the island came from other parts of Polynesia. By Simon Evans, CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo of four pieces of obsidian that were once some kind of tool. The stones are black in color and have many jagged edges. Obsidian tools found on Easter Island. Many of the stone and obsidian tools found on the island came from other parts of Polynesia. By Simon Evans, CC BY-SA 3.0. Worlds colliding Around the early eighteenth century, European ships began to arrive in some of the communities of the deeper Pacific. Of course, the people of New Guinea and other regions to the west had long had interaction with outsiders from the Philippines, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. These were familiar people to interact with. But Europeans were from far away, and they were travelling to places like New Zealand and Hawaii—neither of which had interacted much with outsiders for some time. Some of these encounters were difficult. A Dutch expedition under Abel Tasman reached New Zealand in the 1640s. They fired a cannon to warn the Maori they met, and soon the encounter flared into violence. About 130 years later, British expeditions under James Cook reached Australia, and later Hawaii. Cook, as well, got into conflict with many of the people he met, resulting in a number of deaths. Arguably, these fights were sparked by simple cultural miscommunication. But it didn't help that the Europeans usually arrived armed and sure of their own cultural superiority. It is also important to note that local resistance may not have been a misunderstanding but a valid defense. In the century that followed, Europeans would attempt—in many cases successfully—to conquer and occupy much of the Pacific and the continent of Australia. [Notes] Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Describe European governments during the 1700s. What things were changing and which stayed the same?Around 1750, after centuries of religious warfare, European powers were trying to maintain a delicate balance of power. How did they do this within the European continent? How did their approach differ in their colonies?Explain the role of aristocrats in Europe. What was their relationship to monarchs? What are the two different ways that aristocrats related to the people that worked their land?How were the economic systems in Europe beginning to drive social change? How did this differ for areas like Russia, Prussia and Eastern Europe?What new cultural and intellectual ideas were changing European social structures? How? Where did these ideas come from?How was the Enlightenment commitment to science, reason, and progress connected to imperial expansion? How did racial prejudices contribute to colonialism? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: If you were telling the story of European States and Empires in 1750, how would the narrative differ if you lived in the continent of Europe or in a European colony? In what ways would the narrative be the same? In what ways would it be different?Choose a frame—communities, networks or production and distribution—and explain how it helped you in understand European states and empires in 1750. Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. European States and Empires Caricature of three men in an open field, each representing one of the three estates of France. One man is trapped under a bale of hay while the other two stomp on top of him. Eman M. Elshaikh Through most of the eighteenth century in Europe, kings ruled and peasants worked; it was business as usual. But economic and intellectual movements were beginning to shake things up. Introduction The term "Europe" does not describe a country, but rather a region with lots of islands, mountain ranges, and peninsulas on the western end of the Eurasian landmass. It is a region that, unlike China, has rarely been politically unified. Between 1600 and 1750, Europe underwent massive changes, while also staying very much the same. On the surface, Europe's political and social structure really didn't change much in this period. Monarchs ruled and peasants worked; it was business as usual. But economic and intellectual movements were beginning to shake things up. By 1750, trade was booming in some parts of Europe. Historically, the Mediterranean region had been the commercial center of the region. However, by this time economic power had shifted to northwest Europe. The English, Dutch, and French had overtaken Spain and Portugal as the most powerful European states, economically. Financial innovations strengthened the region's economies, as both European colonial territories and cities expanded. Governments were becoming more centralized and complex. Networks of cultural and economic exchange were flourishing. The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment inspired new cultural and intellectual values, creating a sense of a shared European community. Throughout Europe, the bitter and divisive religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants had mostly ended. Now, a sense of a European community was emerging. Map depicting the extent of the various European countries and empires during the year 1700. Each country and empire is identified by a different color. Map of Europe in 1700. By Rebel Redcoat, CC BY-SA 3.0. Map depicting the extent of the various European countries and empires during the year 1700. Each country and empire is identified by a different color. Map of Europe in 1700. By Rebel Redcoat, CC BY-SA 3.0. But this idea of an integrated European community was still quite fragile. Most European monarchs were connected to one another through marriage and family relations but that did not stop these states from entering into more than 40 wars, usually with each other, during the eighteenth century. Many of these wars revolved around issues of succession (who would rule next), expansion of empires, alliances, and the occasional peasant rebellion. But this period also marks the time when some of the most consequential political revolutions took place: the American, French, Haitian, and Latin American revolutions. These events and the ideas behind them shook the foundations of European social order. Centralized power and shifting hierarchies During the 1700s, some European governments consolidated their power at home while also conquering massive empires on land and at sea. Despite these changes, some fundamental things about European states stayed the same throughout most of the eighteenth century. For the most part, European countries were still ruled by absolute monarchs, who often believed they had a "divine right" to rule, sometimes supported by nobles and bishops who had limited influence. The British and the Dutch were notable exceptions, as their governments included representative bodies like the British Parliament. At the local level, across Europe, the nobility (elites) continued to hold most of the political power. Local aristocrats had great influence over most people's lives, especially in the spheres of economics and religion. But most Europeans weren't aristocrats. The majority continued to live in rural areas and farmed for a living. In some parts of Europe, economic growth created larger towns and a more advanced market economy, known as merchant capitalism. That meant most production took place in small workshops. Production intensified, creating new economic opportunities for men and women. As a consumer economy grew, people needed to produce more and more finished goods. Demand for skilled women's labor increased, and male guildsmen increasingly hired girls and women—even though this was illegal in some places. For some, these changes meant more social mobility. Peasants were able to move into towns and cities and produce new goods. In Russia, Prussia, and Eastern Europe, however, older social patterns stayed largely the same, but there were some monarchs such as Russia's Peter the Great and many of his successors who attempted to modernize some aspects of the Russian Empire in order to align it more closely with its Western European allies. World map with the European colonies outlined in red, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple, and grey. Each color belongs to a different European nation/empire. Map European colonies in 1754. By Andrei nacu, Public Domain. World map with the European colonies outlined in red, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple, and grey. Each color belongs to a different European nation/empire. Map European colonies in 1754. By Andrei nacu, Public Domain. Absolutism, Enlightenment, and the Russian empire One of the largest eighteenth-century empires was that of Russia. By the mid-eighteenth century, Russia's territory had expanded considerably. Covering 22 million sq. km. in 1750, the Russian Empire was huge. It would continue to grow as more territories were won through both war and diplomatic efforts. Russia also represented the turn to modernity seen in other parts of the world at the time. The Russian monarchy and court read Enlightenment scholars, dressed in European fashions, adopted European architectural elements, and promoted scientific investigations. Yet Russia continued to be an empire whose economy was driven mainly by farming. The production of food for the empire was mainly thanks to its enormous population of serfs. So, while the elite were reading about Enlightenment ideas of reason, equality, tolerance, and the rule of law, most of the Russian population could not read and were not rich. Instead, these rural peasant farmers or serfs were bound to the land they farmed. The rulers of Russia were absolute monarchs, most of whom believed they had a divine right to rule over their subjects. Catherine II, empress of Russia, but sometimes better known as Catherine the Great (r. 1762–1796), symbolized the contradictions of this time. Empress Catherine was highly educated. She read and corresponded with some of the most famous Enlightenment authors of the eighteenth century including Voltaire, Diderot, d'Alembert, Grimm, and the female salonnières of Paris. She supported them by becoming a patron of the arts, including funding their writings and libraries. She also enlisted the services of Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun, the famed court painter to Marie Antoinette (you know, the one who eventually lost her head in the French Revolution). However, Catherine was also a highly competent ruler and one who was keenly aware that in order to strengthen Russia's power, she would need to walk a fine line between accepting Enlightenment ideas and maintaining control of her empire. She instituted many reforms including introducing new agricultural technologies and lifting economic regulations on trades such as the textile and sugar industries. She also allowed the serfs to petition the courts if the nobles failed to uphold their duties to the serfs. But she did not free the serfs from their service to the state because she knew how much Russia relied on their production of food. She was also keenly aware of the fact that if she gave serfs some small favors, such as allowing them to bring abuse to the courts, it might be just enough to prevent revolts against the state. Painting of the Russian Empress, Catherine II, looking off into the distance. The empress is sitting in a large, red chair with gold trim and is wearing an ornate dress with a blue sash and a fur coat.Portrait of Empress Catherine II of Russia by Fyodor Rokotov, 1763. Public domain. Painting of the Russian Empress, Catherine II, looking off into the distance. The empress is sitting in a large, red chair with gold trim and is wearing an ornate dress with a blue sash and a fur coat. Portrait of Empress Catherine II of Russia by Fyodor Rokotov, 1763. Public domain. Much like the other empires of this era, Catherine reigned over a vast territory that was both multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Over the course of her reign, she extended the Russian territory by approximately 500,000 sq. km. A large portion of this was won after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. As a result, she became the monarch to an even more diverse group of people. At first, she imposed restrictions on those who were not members of the Russian Orthodox (Christian) Church including Muslim and Jewish subjects. However, by 1773, she instituted the Toleration of All Faiths Edict in an attempt to satisfy those of different faiths. One reason for adopting this edict was to prevent uprisings as well as secure border territories. But Catherine also saw these subjects as people who could add to the treasury by taxing them for believing in a non-Christian faith. Catherine also sought to extend both trade networks and alliances between Russia and those states in Europe and Asia. She sent a delegation to the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan to attempt to open up networks of exchange with this empire. In addition, she viewed herself as a mediator between European powers and attempted to negotiate treaties in order to maintain the delicate balance of power between nation-states. By the end of her reign, and after the political revolutions in both America and France, Catherine began to distance herself from Enlightenment ideas, especially since these were seen as a catalyst for revolt. She fully understood that these ideas could be dangerous for a monarch who still exercised complete control of her empire and her subjects. Painting of a Russian serf and his landlord as they bid each other goodbye. The serf’s belongings are all packed up and ready to be carried to his next destination by a white horse. A Peasant Leaving His Landlord on Yuriev Day. On this day, which was celebrated after the gathering of the harvest, Russian serfs were able to change landowners. However, eventually, this practice was abolished, and serfs were bound practically permanently to one landowner. Painting by Sergei V. Ivanov, Public Domain. Painting of a Russian serf and his landlord as they bid each other goodbye. The serf’s belongings are all packed up and ready to be carried to his next destination by a white horse. A Peasant Leaving His Landlord on Yuriev Day. On this day, which was celebrated after the gathering of the harvest, Russian serfs were able to change landowners. However, eventually, this practice was abolished, and serfs were bound practically permanently to one landowner. Painting by Sergei V. Ivanov, Public Domain. Europe's place in the world By the mid eighteenth century, most European monarchs –like Catherine the Great – were toeing a fine line between enlightened thinking, modernization, and maintaining power. At this time, the world was more connected than ever before, both economically and intellectually. While European monarchs attempted to maintain absolute control of their nations, cracks were beginning to appear. By the end of the century, Britain had lost most of its colonies in the Americas, and France was in a state of terror. But even with these changes, European power was growing, thanks in large part to the innovations in production and distribution that began to occur with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Serfs were indentured servants who were in essence owned by the Russian state. They were bound to the land they farmed and in many cases to the nobles who owned that land. They could not leave the land without the permission of the nobles for whom they worked. In addition, the children of serfs were born into serfdom. But there were some who were able to save some money and eventually buy their freedom. Author bio Eman M. Elshaikh holds an MA in social sciences from and is pursuing a PhD at the University of Chicago, where she also teaches writing. She is a writer and researcher, and has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the US and in the Middle East. Eman was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP world history. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Look at the map of colonies in the Americas, which were many times the size of the countries (Spain, Britain, etc.) that controlled them. What does the caption below the image imply about these territories?Like other empires, the European empires in the Americas had diverse populations, including many enslaved people. How did they try to control these populations?What were the roles of the Americas in the global economy in this period?According to the article, what were indigenous American people doing in this period?According to the author, how did enslaved and subordinated people react to being ruled by European empires? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on the evidence in this article, what aspects of American societies in 1750 seem unique or distinctive, and what aspects seem to be part of a wider global pattern?If you could ask the author for one more piece of information about the Americas in 1750—that isn’t included in this article—what would it be? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Americas in 1750 Painting of slaves working on a plantation washing dishes and carrying loads of sugarcane as their master stands with a sword directing them. By Bennett Sherry In 1750, European empires controlled the Americas. They extracted resources and tried to impose their will on a trade-intensive world of shifting of social relations. Everywhere, people resisted. European empires in the Americas European empires dominated the Americas in 1750. The largest were Spain's viceroyalties1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript of New Spain and Peru. A viceroyalty is a place governed by a viceroy. A viceroy is a person sent by a monarch to someplace outside of the kingdom, where the viceroy governs on the monarch's behalf. These stretched from the Andes Mountains to what is now California. The British Empire's 13 colonies dominated the east coast of North America, while the French controlled much of Canada and the Mississippi River. All three of these empires held island colonies in the Caribbean. The Portuguese maintained a colony in Brazil, while the Dutch and Russians clung to colonies in South America and the Pacific Northwest, respectively. Map of North and South America showing European colonization of the two continents.Map of European colonies in the Americas in 1750. However, even within the shaded areas, there were some who managed to live outside of colonial control. Public domain. Map of North and South America showing European colonization of the two continents. Map of European colonies in the Americas in 1750. However, even within the shaded areas, there were some who managed to live outside of colonial control. Public domain. There were independent states and communities, as well. Indigenous Americans, escaped enslaved people, and others lived and governed at the edges of colonial control. In North America, the Iroquois Confederacy claimed territory from Canada to Kentucky. In other places, smaller communities and tribes governed themselves in ways that rejected and resisted colonial hierarchies, or levels of power. European states didn't build empires thousands of miles away from London, Paris, and Madrid for no reason. Like any big business, these empires were expensive. European rulers sent administrators, soldiers, and sailors to their colonies to expand and maintain control. These armies and navies fought wars against Indigenous Americans and against other Europeans. European governments were willing to pay this price in blood and gold because their colonies were hugely profitable. American resources and labor made Western European countries economic powerhouses. Extraction and control The resources, labor, and markets of the Americas reshaped life in Afro-Eurasia. American food crops, like potatoes and corn, allowed Europe, Africa, and China to expand their populations. Raw materials from the Americas—such as sugar, fur, cotton, and timber—allowed European workshops to manufacture consumer goods and build huge navies. Raw gum arabic, from the sap of the acacia tree in West Africa. This sticky substance was an important resource for textile manufacturers. By Tarig A. Eltom, CC BY 3.0. With the resources of the Americas, Europeans produced more goods and fed more people. But they needed someone to buy the fur hats, furniture, and finery made in European workshops. Luckily for European producers, European governments controlled access to millions of consumers in their colonies. Colonial governments restricted trade with other European powers and limited production in the colonies. For example, in the eighteenth century, the British Parliament passed laws that limited the production and export of hats and iron goods from their American colonies. Notice they didn't stop them from sending fur and actual iron, though. Laws like these forced colonists to export raw materials to England while importing consumer goods from English manufacturers. It was like picking tomatoes and lettuce from the garden, then having to buy salad from the only country allowed to chop it up. This system of colonial resource extraction linked European empires to their colonies and to global networks of trade. The American colonies sent raw materials to Europe in exchange for manufactured goods. In Europe, these raw materials were manufactured into more consumer goods and then traded to African rulers in exchange for people. Europeans enslaved Africans and sent them to the Americas, where their forced labor produced more raw materials. These and many other types of exchange increased the global network of merchants and consumers. Plantations and enslavement reshape the world European colonialism and the plantation system reshaped social orders around the world. Anthropologist Anna Tsing describes plantations as "the engine of European expansion. Plantations produced the wealth—and the modus operandi (method)—that allowed Europeans to take over the world." Europeans used the wealth from their American plantations to fund later conquests in Asia and Africa. American resources fed and clothed the world, while plants and animals from Eurasia transformed life in the Americas. In the eighteenth century, American foods increased the global population by a third. We went from 650 million mouths to 1 billion by the nineteenth century. Potatoes and corn from the Americas fed people in Afro-Eurasia. Meanwhile, large herds of European cattle trampled local ecosystems, destroying forests and food sources. On the plains of the American West, Indigenous Americans adopted the horse into their culture. Europeans brought sugar, a product that reshaped local ecosystems and populations through intensive agriculture and the importation of millions of enslaved people. Photo of rusted, metal shackles used to cuff the wrists and ankles of slaves. 18th-Century Slave Shackles from Tamale, Northern Ghana - International Slavery Museum - Liverpool - England. By Adam Jones, CC BY-SA 2.0. Photo of rusted, metal shackles used to cuff the wrists and ankles of slaves. 18th-Century Slave Shackles from Tamale, Northern Ghana - International Slavery Museum - Liverpool - England. By Adam Jones, CC BY-SA 2.0. Whatever economic limits European governments imposed on their white colonial subjects, others suffered much more. Between 1500 and 1900, Europeans enslaved roughly 12 million African people and transported them to the Americas. Most enslaved Africans were taken to the Caribbean islands and Brazil to labor on sugar plantations. Men were enslaved at higher rates. This created new social dynamics in the Caribbean and also back in West Africa where they were taken from, as women increasingly outnumbered men. Hierarchy and resistance The period from 1500 to 1750 saw the construction of entirely new social structures, identities, and class and racial hierarchies. Caribbean plantation societies were complex. The Spanish government had dozens of formally recognized castas, or categories, for people of mixed ancestry. French and British colonies developed similar racial hierarchies for their subjects. In each European empire, the government attempted to regulate romantic and sexual relations between white colonists and those of indigenous or African descent. In each case, they failed. European empires imposed a rigid system of racial hierarchies, but the real story is that these categories were fluid. Hierarchies were based on skin color, and people of mixed ancestry often claimed to belong to castas of higher status. Many slave owners had children with women they enslaved. When these children were freed, it further complicated social relationships. Free people of color often owned enslaved people themselves and had more wealth than poor white people. Wealthy white women maintained the households of American plantations, directing enslaved people and servants. These women were responsible for maintaining the boundaries of class and race in plantation societies. So, while wealthy white women were socially subordinate to their husbands in colonial society, they also perpetuated that system. Slave revolts were a constant concern. The wealth of European colonial governments depended on the labor of enslaved people, so when harsh working conditions and high mortality sparked revolts, it threatened the lifeblood of empire. Maroons were the descendants of people who had been enslaved but escaped. They established communities in remote areas outside colonial control. In Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, and many other islands in the Caribbean, maroons settled in the mountains, in some cases fighting wars against colonial armies. In the southern United States, thousands of maroons fled deep into the Great Dismal Swamp along the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina. Many lived there from the beginning of the eighteenth century until the end of the American Civil War. Painting of 16 different family units of various skin tones and races. Descriptions underneath each family contain the term used to identify their mixed-race children. Families with lighter skin tones are depicted higher up along the social hierarchy. An artistic rendering of the racial hierarchies in the Spanish colonies. “Las Castas Mexicanas,” by Ignacio María Barreda (1777). Public domain. Painting of 16 different family units of various skin tones and races. Descriptions underneath each family contain the term used to identify their mixed-race children. Families with lighter skin tones are depicted higher up along the social hierarchy. An artistic rendering of the racial hierarchies in the Spanish colonies. “Las Castas Mexicanas,” by Ignacio María Barreda (1777). Public domain. Colonial authorities imposed their religious, social, and racial ideas on the peoples of the Americas. At the same time, however, in all parts of the Americas, Indigenous Americans and people of African descent adopted and adapted the culture of the colonizers to meet their own needs and beliefs. For example, in Cuba, enslaved people and the descendants of West Africans developed a religion called Santería. Santería combines parts of the Yoruba religion of West Africa with Catholicism, mainly the worship of Catholic saints. In this way and in many others, colonized peoples found ways to hold on to their culture and to co-opt the belief systems their colonizers imposed on them. Painting of fugitive slaves hiding in a forest as European men ride by on horseback. Fugitive Slaves in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia. By David Edward Cronin, public domain. Painting of fugitive slaves hiding in a forest as European men ride by on horseback. Fugitive Slaves in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia. By David Edward Cronin, public domain. The curious case of New Orleans One region of the Americas that touches upon all the points in this article is that of New Orleans. The city was composed of a mix of Indigenous Americans, Africans, and Europeans. These communities intermingled, although they generally had very unequal statuses. Indigenous Americans had lived in this fertile region for thousands of years, with different tribes, such as the Caddo, Houma, and Choctaw, carving out regions and interacting through networks of exchange. In 1718, the city of La Nouvelle-Orléans (New Orleans) was officially founded by the European (French) settlers who claimed it as their own. But life in the swamp proved to be more difficult than the French imagined. Hurricanes, disease, and a lack of enthusiasm for "respectable" settlers to the colony meant that the French colony was more of a drain on the finances of the monarch than productive. As part of the European treaties hashed out after the French and Indian (Seven Years' War), France ceded—or signed over ownership—of the territory to Spain in 1763. The Spanish then ruled over the region for the next 40 years. During the Spanish control of New Orleans, they imposed the racial system of classification of the castas mentioned earlier. But the people who lived in New Orleans embodied the notion that these classifications could be very fluid. This was a city of both enslaved Africans and free people of color, Creoles, French, Spanish, Indigenous Americans, and smaller communities with German and British ancestry. There were also many people living in the colony who were considered "undesirable," in particular pirates and prostitutes. And while the official faith of both the French and Spanish colony was Catholicism, there were a number of different African, Indigenous, and syncretic faiths as well, including what would become known as voodoo. It was most certainly an eclectic mix of peoples, cultures, and faiths. In many ways, it represents the changing nature and demography of the Americas in the eighteenth century. New Orleans was also positioned along a thriving network of exchange, as it sat at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which connected the northern regions of the Americas with the Caribbean and beyond to the Atlantic and Latin America. It was, therefore, considered an important region to control. In addition, there was a thriving sugar plantation industry along the river. The Americas were a cauldron of shifting social orders, cultural collisions, and economic exploitation. All of this helped lead to the tension between colonial control and resistance that would launch an age of industrial and political revolutions after 1750. These revolutions would lead to a complete upheaval of European power and colonial control. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How has the study of and teaching of history changed in the last 50 years?Who was one of the first historians to write about world or global history and what was his focus?Why did McNeill think that the West should be the focus of a more global history?Why is it important to look at McNeill’s work in the historical context in which it was written?Why did McNeill write “The Rise of the West after Twenty-Five Years,” a follow-up article to his book? According to this article, what did McNeill admit he got wrong?What other ideas were also being questioned about the influence of the West from the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries?The author of this article, Dr. Getz, points out a number of problems with focusing only on the contributions of the West when looking at the advances made throughout history from 1750 to the present. What are these problems? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The traditional view of history from the 1750s to about the 1950s was the importance and influence of the West on global history. Why did this view shift from the 1960s to today? Why do you think this has been an important step in forming a truly global history?Why is it important to fully evaluate sources and learn about the historical context in which the text was written? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Rise of the West? Map of the world with colonies of the British Empire shown in red. The map is bordered with images of colonized people, British colonists, and animals from these regions By Trevor Getz A respected historian described the last 250 years as the “Rise of the West.” Then twenty-five years later his premise was disputed in an important article, written by the same historian. What changed? The rise of the West? Humans make sense of the past by telling stories. Some stories are about small events. Your grandmother explains the origins of a family tradition, or you see a historical marker by the side of the road describing something that happened there—small, meaningful stories. Other stories try to give us a sense of a greater sweep of national or human history. These narratives help us understand our shared, global past. Before the last 50 years or so, most professional historians told stories that were tied to the history of a nation-state. They might be historians writing about Britain, or the U.S., or China. Their stories explained the origins and the development of a country. Not many tried to relate the history of the world in a digestible way. But in the 1960s, this began to change as historians started thinking about the world differently. They saw a world that was increasingly tied together by phones, jet airplanes, and a booming intercontinental trade. One of the most important of these historians was William McNeill, who is now widely recognized as one of the founders of the scholarly subject we call "world history." Believe it or not, world history in the academic sense didn't really exist before the 1960s. People tried to write on this topic individually, but world history is—to put it mildly—a group project. It took a long time before historians would get together to debate how to write about the history of the world. The World History Association only dates back to 1982. The Journal of World History was only founded in 1990. By contrast, the journal of German history, Historische Zeitschrift, dates back to 1859. The English Historical Review began publishing in 1886, and the American Historical Review in 1895. Each of these journals focused on their nation's corner of the globe, not the world as a whole. Photo of Earth from space centered on Southern Africa.Image of Earth taken from Apollo 17, 1972. Some historians credit these early images of Earth from space with changing the way people thought about our world, its connections, and their place on it. By NASA, public domain. Photo of Earth from space centered on Southern Africa. Image of Earth taken from Apollo 17, 1972. Some historians credit these early images of Earth from space with changing the way people thought about our world, its connections, and their place on it. By NASA, public domain. The Rise of the West? (1963) William McNeill was an American. But in the 1940s, he trained in European history. During this era, American universities only taught U.S. and European history. In the 1960s, after many years of work on ancient and medieval Europe, McNeill wrote his first book that tried to capture a more global past—The Rise of the West1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript: A History of the Human Community. It explained an important and now well-known factor in world history: societies affect each other through trade and exchange of ideas, people, and goods. McNeill wrote this book in 1963, when the "West" (mostly Europe, the United States, and Canada) was economically the most powerful region of the world. So writing a history that tried to explain why the most important trade went from the "West" to other parts of the world seemed like a great topic. As a result, McNeill's world history narrative was all about how the West was the center of the most important ideas in world history. For McNeill, these ideas included: "industrialism, science, and … democratic political faiths." These ideas had spread around the world, especially after 1750, as Europe and the rest of the "West" became the most powerful region. Indeed, he predicted, the world of the future would "surely bear a Western imprint." Book cover with the author’s name, William H. McNeill, the title The Rise of the West, and in small lettering “A History of the Human Community”.Front cover of The Rise of the West, 1963. Fair use. Book cover with the author’s name, William H. McNeill, the title The Rise of the West, and in small lettering “A History of the Human Community”. Front cover of The Rise of the West, 1963. Fair use. So really, the West is sort of an invention of those who tell these stories, but it wasn't McNeill who invented it. Scholars and politicians in Western Europe have been talking about "Western civilization" since at least the nineteenth century. It was a story about the past that served a political purpose. Authors used the idea of the West to both justify and explain the dominance of some European nations over other parts of the world. They were creating a narrative of world history that centered the role of a Western culture that was better than other cultures. The concept of the West—and the question of who is "western" and who is not—is flexible. In the early twentieth century, U.S. schools started teaching history courses about Western civilization. These courses told how the modern West inherited its traditions from the Renaissance and ancient Rome and Greece. But Egypt and Mesopotamia (today's Iraq) were also part of this story. Yet both places were definitely considered to be outside the West by McNeill and others writing in 1963! Photo of historian William McNeil holding several copies of The Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History.Historian William McNeill in 2004. By BerkshirePublishing,CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo of historian William McNeil holding several copies of The Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History. Historian William McNeill in 2004. By BerkshirePublishing,CC BY-SA 3.0. To understand why McNeill and other historians of his generation were focused on the "rise of the West," we have to try to understand the time and place in which they were writing. It was a period when it seemed that Western ideas were triumphant. The early 1960s in the United States were a time of rapid industrial growth. Western-style capitalist economies seemed to have no boundaries. For many Americans, American-style democratic government seemed to be working just great. Around the world, everyone wanted to be "modern," which really meant "Western" to most people. Moreover, McNeill was writing during the Cold War, when Americans were largely opposed to Soviet communism. They generally believed communism was authoritarian, and un-democratic. Most Europeans were "Western" allies, while some seemed to live unhappily under Soviet rule. Meanwhile, most Americans considered other parts of the world—large areas like China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America—to be backward. Americans believed these societies could slowly be modernized only by making them more like the West. "'The Rise of the West' after Twenty-Five Years" (1990) But in 1990, William McNeill wrote another work, an article called "'The Rise of the West' after Twenty-Five Years." This article was startling. One of the world's most respected historians wrote that he was wrong. He no longer believed, as he'd said in The Rise of the West, that the West had always been the biggest and most important factor in human history. Instead he pointed out that China had frequently had the biggest impact on changes in culture and technology in many eras of the past. He implied that he had undervalued the contributions of other regions as well. This article, like the earlier book, was also shaped by the context in which it was written. By 1990, the Soviet Union had begun to collapse. The lines between the "West" and the "rest" were fuzzier. McNeill could see that Japan had risen, by 1980, to become the second biggest industrial producer in the world. China was not far behind. It no longer seemed clear that the future of the world was purely Western. At the same time, McNeill could see that this industrial growth in Asia was partly based on Western developments in earlier decades. He wrote that "if Japan's post-World War II economic record turns out to be the presage [prediction] of further triumphs for the Pacific rim, it is no less clear that this success, too, will depend on prior borrowings of European (and American) skills." By making this connection, McNeill became open to new and more global explanations for the era many had characterized as Western dominance. All that Western success in the eighteenth through twentieth centuries was now being questioned. Wasn't this success due in some ways to contributions from all over the world? Shouldn't he have looked at global contributions to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of Atlantic democracies? Why not consider the importance of ideas from the Islamic world, or technologies Europeans learned from visiting eighteenth-century China? What was the role of labor and the intellectual ideas of Africans, or the resources and technologies of the people of the Americas? The importance of these questions for understanding the making of the contemporary world in which we live now became clear. What stories should we tell about the last two and a half centuries? Why does any of this matter? In seeking to understand the period from 1750 to the present, we have to build narratives, which become stories. After all, that's how humans make sense of the past. Once, a narrative that focused on the rise of the United States and western Europe felt like the biggest, truest, and most important story of this era. But things have changed. We now have a lot more evidence to suggest that this history is much more complex, and more global. This doesn't mean that the "West" was not important to the creation of modernity. In many ways it was central! For example: Enlightenment ideas of personal and national sovereignty were first fully laid out in Europe and its American colonies.Political revolutions in the United States and France were central to the development of the modern nation-state.The Industrial Revolution, which really began in Britain (and its empire), changed the way we work, live, and relate to the world around us.Europeans, and European settlers in the Americas, ruled most of the world for much of this era through imperialism and colonialism.Even the idea of the “West” was born in this era. (People in Europe before 1750 didn’t really think of themselves as “Western”). This idea helped to define the systems of race and the categorization of people that still haunts the world today. This idea helped to define the systems of race and the categorization of people that still haunts the world today. But although these points are all accurate, there are three major problems with telling the story of this era purely as a story of the "Rise of the West." The first problem is that most of the ideas and changes described above weren't exclusively invented in the West. Europeans studied Asian "manufactories" as well as plantations in the Caribbean. Then they developed their own modern factories. Enlightenment philosophers in France and Britain read works of Arabic and Indian philosophy, which influenced their thinking. Some of the most important "Western" revolutions of this period were deeply inspired by African or Indigenous American cultures and peoples. Haiti, Mexico, and South America all had revolutions, not just France and the United States. The major events of the long nineteenth century were the result of connections linking multiple places, rather than the product of just one region. But local conditions in Europe probably still mattered. So we need to know: How important were local factors, and how significant were global ones? The second problem is that none of the ideas that we think of as modern have had only one, Western way of expression. We just can't say "one size fits all" across the whole world in politics, business, or culture. In the world today, there are several different styles of democratic governance, some of them very influenced by local ideas about how to govern. Similarly, industry works differently in Japan than in the United States (for example). In other words, although innovations that emerged first in the "West" have spread to many regions, they have in many cases been adapted and changed to suit local needs. The final problem is that we now sit at a time in which the accuracy of the "Rise of the West" model is far from clear. China's current dominance in manufacturing is one key example of a shift in power away from Europe and the United States. But we can also look at many "Western" societies and ask whether that word even fits. The United States, and increasingly Europe, are multi-cultural, with large and diverse ethnic and religious communities from many different regions. In the future, these societies will succeed or fail depending on how they manage this multi-culturalism. That may, in fact, be one of the most important stories for us to tell. [Notes] Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Looking at the map, what do you notice about the changing shape and size of the Mughal Empire in the years leading up to 1750?What groups or classes of people were the most important supporters of Mughal rule?Like other empires, the Mughal Empire had lots of different communities. How did it successfully rule all of these groups until the mid-eighteenth century?According to the article, what was the role of the Mughal Empire in the global economy?What internal challenges did the Mughal emperors face in 1750?What external challenges did the Mughal emperors face in 1750? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on the evidence in this article, what aspects of the Mughal Empire in 1750 seem unique or distinctive, and what aspects seem to be part of a wider global pattern?If you could ask the author for one more piece of information about the Mughal Empire—that isn’t included in this article—what would it be? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Mughal Empire Photo of a mosque that was built by the Mughal Empire. The mosque is embellished with painted geometrical and floral designs. Whitney Howarth The religiously diverse Mughal Empire is partly responsible for what’s in your spice rack. This was one of the wealthiest and most peaceful empires the world has ever known. Until it wasn’t. An empire in fragments The South Asian subcontinent—modern India, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan— is part of the Eurasian landmass. Like Europe, it has a long history of big empires and small states. In 1750, it was mostly governed through a loose confederation of powerful princely states1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript and rich port cities. Once upon a time, the subcontinent had been dominated by the mighty Mughal Empire. But in the eighteenth century, the control held by the Mughals had begun to change for two reasons. First, growing internal divisions led to rival groups challenging the central government of the declining empire. Second, European merchants and governments started looking for ways to get some of the empire's wealth. Technically, the empire would survive until 1858. In reality, these two changes amplified each other and had already created a major crisis for the Mughal rulers in 1750. Map of the Mughal Empire showing the extent of its expansion over a couple hundred years from present day Afghanistan into India.This map details the growth of the Mughal Empire under three of its rulers, Babur, Akbar, and Aurangzeb. By Santosh.mbahrm, CC BY-SA 3.0. Map of the Mughal Empire showing the extent of its expansion over a couple hundred years from present day Afghanistan into India. This map details the growth of the Mughal Empire under three of its rulers, Babur, Akbar, and Aurangzeb. By Santosh.mbahrm, CC BY-SA 3.0. Networks of trade and bureaucracy The Mughals were a Muslim dynasty who ruled over a majority Hindu population. By 1750, they had dominated much of South Asia for several centuries. Muslims were already living in India when the Mughals first arrived. During Mughal rule, Muslims averaged only about 15 percent of the population. For most of their era of dominance, however, Mughal rule was generally tolerant of all of the religions of the region. That policy created enough social stability to ensure healthy business, investment, and trade. The Mughals had built their empire by making good use of India's resources, developing its production capacity, and supporting a very rich Muslim-dominated trade system in the Indian Ocean. India was at the center of a global market for goods in which Muslims, from many backgrounds and regions, were the principal dealers. Muslims across the Indian Ocean benefitted by having a common language (Arabic), a common set of ethical codes, and a shared tradition of commercial practices. Painted portrait of Vasco de Gama dressed in a long black coat and carrying a sword and wooden staff. Portrait of navigator Vasco da Gama, from the c.1565 compendium, Livro de Lisuarte de Abreu (Pierpont Morgan Library, M.525). Public domain. Painted portrait of Vasco de Gama dressed in a long black coat and carrying a sword and wooden staff. Portrait of navigator Vasco da Gama, from the c.1565 compendium, Livro de Lisuarte de Abreu (Pierpont Morgan Library, M.525). Public domain. South Asia had an important place in this system. While most of the population farmed foods such as rice, Mughal India had a thriving manufacturing industry, producing a massive quantity of hand-loom textiles for the Indian Ocean economy. The trade in cotton and silk fabrics had brought great wealth to India as early as the fifth century BCE (during the Roman Empire). High demand for these items had attracted traders from as far as China in the East and Persia in the West. Yet this wealth made the region a target for competitive rivals. By the fifteenth century, Indians had taken advantage of growing global markets to expand textile production and distribution. And trade was really spiced up by the nutmeg, mace, cloves, cardamom and cinnamon coming out of Indonesia's "spice islands". Other than black pepper, India didn't grow many spices of its own, but it was the world's trans-shipment center for spices. Columbus had sailed on behalf of the King and Queen of Spain in 1492 to get easier access to that flavorful wealth. By 1750, almost every household in London and Lisbon had a pepper pot! Building the Mughal state The Mughal state was established by the Sultan Babur in the sixteenth century, with his legendary victory over the Lodhi Sultan in 1526. Babur used 20 cannons to defeat an army twice the size of his own. But he died two years later, so it wasn't really Babur's leadership that sustained his dynasty. That success belonged to his grandson, who managed to expand Mughal territories and establish a highly efficient governance structure. Extensive commercial activity, both in trade and textile production, created great wealth. By the early seventeenth century, Mughals governed one of the world's most populous and affluent empires in world history. Picture of the Mughal emperor Babur sitting in a garden surrounded by his attendants. Detail from Babur with attendants in a garden pavilion, c. 1605. Public domain. Picture of the Mughal emperor Babur sitting in a garden surrounded by his attendants. Detail from Babur with attendants in a garden pavilion, c. 1605. Public domain. This wealth was ensured by a wide-spread, efficient government. The Mughal rulers established a complex bureaucracy. Both Hindu rajas and Muslim sultans could become officers of the state, called mansabdars, when the emperors awarded them land grants. These military and civil leaders maintained cavalry (armed horsemen) ready for battle, and they collected taxes on behalf of the empire. In return, they got land rights, payment, and status. Mansabdars were similar to European nobles, but also differed in key respects. In the Mughal system, noble titles were not inherited and could be taken away by the emperor. Also, unlike European nobles, mansabdars did not own the land but only held the right to collect taxes. This meant that they were quite weak compared to the power of the emperor. At first. Internal problems emerge After the first 150 years of Mughal rule, under Emperors Jahangir and Shah Jahan, nobles became increasingly rich, emboldened by larger armies, and able to challenge the weak center in Delhi. Then, around 1700, the Mughal state reached the limits of territorial growth. When the state ran out of land, it was a lot like running out of money, since awarding land was how they bought the mansabdars' loyalty. Meanwhile, the mansabdars had grown extremely powerful. Imagine feeding your pet tiger kitten delicious meat until it grows to 500 pounds, then running out of meat. As the number of nobles, bureaucrats, and military commanders grew, the state feared those elites, some of whom could now maintain massive armies of 40,000 to 60,000. Factions rose and battles over succession for the imperial throne created political instability. Two more problems that emerged were the decline of religious tolerance and an era of continuous war in the late seventeenth century. The vast Mughal state had benefitted, both financially and culturally, from generations of leaders who were practical and tolerant with their diverse subjects. Then came Emperor Aurangzeb, a religious and military zealot2^22squared. After taking power in 1658, he spent most of his 49 years of rule conquering territories, amassing armies, violently suppressing rebellions, and brutally punishing his enemies, both Hindu and Muslim. Peace was rare in these times. Millions died in combat, and millions more civilians died from drought, plague, and famine during these wars. It was unfortunate timing for the Mughals, but this was right when some well-armed foreign powers began to put increased pressure on the state. External rivals for power Many different Europeans were aggressively seeking bits of land in South Asia in the eighteenth century, including the Dutch, French, and Portuguese. But it was the British who emerged dominant. They were represented by something they called the East India Company, a British private joint stock trading company that rose to prominence in the northeast province of Bengal in the mid-eighteenth century. Initially, they were content to be just like a mansabdar, working within the Mughal bureaucracy and acknowledging the emperor's authority—while making money, of course. Through treaty agreements, the Mughal state gave the Company the right to collect taxes on the lands they won by political and military intervention. The Company then began to expand beyond Bengal. The plan wasn't so much to conquer India as it was to slowly expand their commercial interests. Through carefully calculated maneuverings, they went province by province and made nice with different local factions. By allying with the various local power players who didn't like the Mughals and other Europeans, the British gradually beat out all other European rivals. Europeans weren't the only outsiders challenging Mughal supremacy. By 1750, neighboring Afghan, Uzbek, and Persian states had pushed against the empire, often furiously. In 1759, the Persians even briefly occupied the capital in Delhi, claiming the famed gem-encrusted Peacock Throne. Meanwhile, internal division continued to crack the empire. Contests over the throne created particular challenges for the state, eating up all of the empire's budget with war costs. Painting of the Mughal emperor seated on a grand, golden throne adorned with flowers and peacocks. How many peacocks can you find in this picture? Although the original Peacock Throne was lost by the time of painting was created around 1800, it depicts what was either a replica, or was painted from memories and descriptions. By Khairullah, public domain. Painting of the Mughal emperor seated on a grand, golden throne adorned with flowers and peacocks. How many peacocks can you find in this picture? Although the original Peacock Throne was lost by the time of painting was created around 1800, it depicts what was either a replica, or was painted from memories and descriptions. By Khairullah, public domain. Aurangzeb's cruelty produced a high death toll, and he destroyed many Hindu temples and Muslim holy places during military invasions. However, his failures cannot completely explain the decline of the empire. Personal bigotry aside, Aurangzeb also built Hindu temples and hired more Hindus into his bureaucracy than any previous Mughal ruler. Religious zealotry does not explain the end of the empire, which lingered on for another 150 years. But we might be able to trace the reasons for this empire's slow decline to the general costs of maintaining a medieval war state in modern times. At the same time, India's changing role in the global economy now introduced new Indian bankers, financers, foreign traders and investors of every kind, and that diverted money from the state. The system had evolved into something they simply could not afford. As Mughal power diminished, Europeans— especially British merchants—stepped in to reap the profits. [Notes] Author bio Whitney Howarth is an associate professor of history at Plymouth State University where she specializes in modern world history and the history of India. Whitney has taught world history at the college level since 1999 and was, from 1995 to 2004, a research fellow at Northeastern’s World History Center, where she assisted in the research, design, and creation of professional development programs for high-school world history teachers, hosted seminars by top world historical scholars, and produced multi-media publications. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Looking at the map, what do you notice about the location of the Ottoman Empire?In addition to their political and military roles, what religious role did the Ottoman Sultans claim, and who were their officials and representatives?Like other empires, the Ottoman Empire had many provinces and lots of different religious and ethnic communities. How did it rule all of these groups?According to the article, what kinds of relationships did the Ottoman state and people have with others outside the Empire?What big global changes challenged the Ottoman State in 1750? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on the evidence in this article, what aspects of the Ottoman Empire in 1750 seem unique, and what aspects seem to be part of a wider global pattern?If you could ask the author for one more piece of information about the Ottoman Empire—that isn’t included in this article—what would it be? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Ottoman Empire Painting of the Ottoman Sultan, Selim III, sitting atop a golden throne with his court of advisors and servants standing behind him. By Eman M. Elshaikh The Ottoman Empire stretched across Asia, Europe, and Africa beginning in the late thirteenth century. Centuries later, its growth slowed and it transformed in many ways. Origins The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299 and rather quickly expanded from its origins as one of many Turkish states that rose to power after the decline of the Seljuq Turks in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey). But it really began to expand and consolidate power in the fifteenth century, especially after the conquest of Constantinople. Much of this success was a result of the Ottoman military and an elite fighting force called the Janissaries. The Janissaries were composed of young male, Christian slaves taken from wars in the Balkans (modern-day Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia, among others). They were raised in the Islamic faith and either became administrators for the sultan or members of the sultan's personal bodyguard and military. It was these troops that used new weapons, called harquebus, to make the Ottomans one of the first gunpowder empires. The Ottoman Empire reached its greatest size in the late seventeenth century but lasted until 1922. It was one of the largest and most long-lasting empires in world history. At its greatest extent, the empire extended to three continents -- stretching from the Balkans in southeastern Europe across Anatolia, Central Asia, Arabia, and North Africa, thanks in large part to the Ottoman military and its use of gunpowder. Map of Mediterranean region with the borders of the Ottoman Empire at it’s largest size highlighted in green.The Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent. By Chamboz, CC BY-SA 4.0. Map of Mediterranean region with the borders of the Ottoman Empire at it’s largest size highlighted in green. The Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent. By Chamboz, CC BY-SA 4.0. Transformations and new directions Throughout the eighteenth century, the Ottomans lost (and gained back) some important territories. Some historians say that this was partly to blame for the beginning of Ottoman decline. But it might be more accurate to consider this a period of transformation. For a few centuries the empire had grown under strong central authority. But now it was shifting and undergoing important changes. It's true that the Ottomans gained little territory after the seventeenth century. However, the Empire continued to exist into the twentieth century, just functioning differently than it had in the early centuries. As the Empire stopped expanding, Ottoman leaders began to focus on consolidating territories that they already ruled. The borders of the Ottoman Empire became less fuzzy. The same was true of neighboring European and Asian states. The political structure started to shift around this time, too. For the first few centuries of its existence, the Ottoman Empire had been controlled by a chain of powerful warrior-sultans. They ruled and led military campaigns. But by the middle of the seventeenth century, this stable chain of sultans was interrupted. Many sultans were overthrown after only ruling for a short period of time. These short reigns were the result of political rivalries, military revolts, and resistance from elites. At this time, European monarchies were becoming more centralized, meaning most European monarchs had absolute power over their territories and subjects. But Ottoman power was shifting mostly in the opposite direction. A civilian bureaucracy (an organized system of state officials) was becoming stronger as the sultans themselves gave up some power. At the top of this bureaucracy, powerful officials called viziers had a lot of authority, but power was also becoming less concentrated in the capital. Instead, provincial officials gained more political control. Central authority still mattered—but the balance had shifted. Local leaders and imperial officials worked with the sultan to manage the vast empire. Provincial leaders sent taxes to the capital. They also recruited soldiers for imperial wars. The capital and the provinces relied on each other for legitimacy. This was also the case with sultans and the powerful officials who controlled the political life of the empire. An empire of nations Since this one massive empire held territories across three continents, it's hard to imagine a single identity unifying all the peoples. In fact, there was no such single identity. Like the Qing dynasty in China and the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire was multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Islam did play a big part in the empire, however. The Ottoman state based its authority on religion. The first warrior-sultans expanded the empire in the name of Islam. Sultans claimed the title of caliph, or successor to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. Alongside the sultans, religious scholars, called ulama, played a significant role in running the state. This was particularly true in the courts. How did the Islamic nature of the empire affect the non-Muslim population? For the most part, non-Muslims had relatively lower social status than Muslims. They were also subject to special taxes and had other economic restrictions. However, non-Muslims had some autonomy (independence) under the Ottoman millet system. The system allowed religious communities to regulate their own religious and civil affairs. Each millet, or nation, had a religious leader that managed the community. Ottoman hierarchies The millet system shows that clear boundaries between different social groups were important for Ottoman political control. There were even Ottoman laws that specified the kinds of clothing that people in different communities could wear, much like those that existed in the Qing dynasty. Despite this, it's hard to simplify a set of rules governing Ottoman society. It was incredibly diverse. Generally, bureaucrats, religious scholars, and military officials had the greatest social power. Warrior-aristocrats, who were mostly Muslim, benefited from tax exemptions and the timar system of land grants. Under this system, in return for military service, warriors were given land. Painting of an Ottoman soldier as he cleans the barrel of his gun. The soldier wears a blue tunic and a fur coat made from a large cat. Depiction of a janissary from a book about costumes from the late seventeenth century. Public Domain. Painting of an Ottoman soldier as he cleans the barrel of his gun. The soldier wears a blue tunic and a fur coat made from a large cat. Depiction of a janissary from a book about costumes from the late seventeenth century. Public Domain. Painting of an Ottoman administrative official sitting outside in a garden on an ornate, red carpet. Mothers and fathers look on as their young, Christian sons are taken as a form of tribute. Illustration of recruitment of Christian boys for the devşirme. Ottoman miniature painting, 1558. By Ali Amir Beg, Public Domain. Painting of an Ottoman administrative official sitting outside in a garden on an ornate, red carpet. Mothers and fathers look on as their young, Christian sons are taken as a form of tribute. Illustration of recruitment of Christian boys for the devşirme. Ottoman miniature painting, 1558. By Ali Amir Beg, Public Domain. The rest of society made up the lowest class. It included merchants, farmers, herdsman, manufacturers, and seafarers. Though they had the least official power, they powered the engine of the empire. They were the main producers of goods and revenues (through taxes). They supported the military, bureaucracy, and religious establishment. Hierarchy was important, but it wasn't totally rigid. Religious, gender, and economic differences put people into different groups. But there were a lot of overlaps. Commoners could be wealthy or poor. They could be peasants, townspeople, or nomadic pastoralists. People also were able to move across groups or gain social power. Merit was often rewarded regardless of wealth, lineage, or social status. In fact, enslaved or common people in the Ottoman military or bureaucracy, such as the Janissaries, often rose through the ranks. They ended up in some of the highest positions in society. Throughout the Ottoman Empire's history, women were dependent on the men in their families for money and social position. This was the case in many medieval societies. Generally, older women or women with children had relatively more power in a household. Women's lives were relatively stable over the centuries. This is largely because religious ideas ruled gender relations. Islamic law granted women certain rights, like divorce and inheritance. It also allowed them to use their property and wealth to start and maintain institutions like schools and mosques. But religion was also used to limit women's power. For example, women had different rights in the courts. Also, some interpretations of Islam were used to justify keeping women at home. The Ottomans and the world With the empire extending across continents, its borders touched numerous states and other empires. But it also had tense relationships with some of them. For example, it was involved in conflict with the Safavid Empire to its east for centuries. The Safavids also had a Muslim leadership and claimed religious legitimacy, but it was based on a rival Islamic school of thought. The Ottomans also had a strained relationship with its European neighbors. This was particularly true of the Russians and Austrians. At the same time, the Ottoman state often collaborated with other European powers. They also wanted to imitate European models. For example, Ottomans enlisted European military advisors, because some leaders felt that recent military defeats were due to their less technically advanced militaries. Western nations could afford these new technologies partly because of New World wealth. Ottoman elites also became more connected to global cultural movements, particularly the Enlightenment. Translations became more widely available with the Ottoman adoption of the printing press in the 1720s. Together, these trends of military and technological innovation and cultural worldliness gave rise to a series of reforms of education, the military, and finance beginning in the 1830s. Called the Tanzimat, these reforms were also a response to the diversity of the empire. They gave civil rights to minorities, including the guarantee for Armenian and Syrian Christians, Jews, and other millets (communities of different religious and ethnic minorities) to practice their religion. However, religious conservatives challenged these trends, insisting that the rise of secular education and other reforms were harming Ottoman society. In a parallel development, Ottoman elites also began buying many global products and following trends from abroad. They collected foreign art, luxury goods, and foods. Personal spending likely rose across the different social classes. Foreign goods became more common. As it had done in the past, the Ottoman state played a crucial role in this circulation of goods. Many of those living in the empire continued to be engaged in the production and distribution of food, raw materials, and other goods, in much the same way as Arabs had for centuries. The state did its best to ensure that state officials, military employees, and people living in the capital had access to what they needed. Silk Road trade networks had enriched the Ottomans for centuries. But new sea routes that bypassed Ottoman trade routes shifted the power away. This is not to say that regional trade networks ended during the eighteenth century, but the global sea networks that strengthened after the sixteenth century transformed the prestige and position of the Ottoman Empire. With a reduction in overland trade in favor of trade along global networks and with newly established colonies in Asia, European power grew as Ottoman power faded. Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences, focusing on history and anthropology. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: The earliest written sources we have for human history are more than 5,000 years old. So why does this course begin in the year 1750?In this case of 1750, the narrative most historians believed for a long time was the “Rise of the West”. Who created this narrative? Is this narrative reliable and how might we test it?According to the article, what are two ways that people organized their communities in 1750?In 1750, most of what was made or grown was still produced by families or small groups of people and consumed by them or their neighbors. But there was also unprecedented trade and commerce. What drove companies like the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company whose reach, for the first time, spanned the world?According to this article, what kinds of networks were key to bringing together many different concepts, innovations, and cultural ideas in some regions at this time? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Based on this article, would a historian living in China in the year 1750 write the same narrative about this time as a Western historian? How does this change your idea of history in general?According to the author, how can we evaluate the “Rise of the West” narrative in this unit? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Unit One Overview: The World in 1750 Painting of three people on shore with one pointing toward several large ships in the nearby water. By Trevor Getz To find meaning in the massive political, economic and social transformations that occurred between 1750 and 1914, we must understand their starting point: The world in 1750. In this course, we study change and continuity over time, from about 1750 to today. It's a shorter period of time than it sounds. There are sharks alive today that were born before 1750. Our planet is 4.5 billion years old, and our species is 250,000 years old. The earliest written sources we have for human history are more than 5,000 years old. So, 270-ish years is a drop in the bucket. But studying the recent past can be especially useful for understanding change and continuity in a way that makes it meaningful and usable. By studying patterns – looking at the things that change, for whom they change, and how they change – we find meaning within the evidence. In this course, we give you lots of evidence about continuity and change between 1750 and now. We hope you can subject this evidence to your own interpretations, and that what you find will help you understand the world you live in today and make decisions for the future. To make this kind of meaning of the past, and to understand continuity and change over the last 27 decades or so, you have to know where you're starting. How can you tell what has changed if you don't have a picture of what things were like before? So unit one is all about the period in which the course begins, the years around 1750. We can begin our story of the year 1750 by looking at a narrative – a story about continuity and change – that for a long time was believed by most historians. The thing about world history is that there are narratives that try to give us a single, simplified story about the shared past of everyone, everywhere. In this case of 1750, the narrative most historians believed for a long time was the "Rise of the West". It was developed mostly by historians from countries in Europe and North America, also known as the "West". So, it's not surprising that the narrative focuses on the rise of these regions of the world. The story begins by suggesting that up until about 1750, wealth and power were pretty evenly distributed in several parts of the world, including China, Europe, and elsewhere. But soon afterward, the story goes, Europe and its overseas colonies in North America began to dominate the world. This change sped up in the twentieth century, so that the "West" still occupies a dominant position in world affairs today. World map with several countries colored blue to indicate being part of “the West”.A map of the so-called Western World. Careful observers will notice some problems with calling these places “the West”. By Concus Cretus, CC BY-SA 4.0. World map with several countries colored blue to indicate being part of “the West”. A map of the so-called Western World. Careful observers will notice some problems with calling these places “the West”. By Concus Cretus, CC BY-SA 4.0. Or does it? This narrative has been around for a while, partly because it has some evidence behind it and partly because powerful people want to believe it. But it also needs to be tested using evidence. Is this narrative really an accurate explanation of what has happened over the years since 1750? Or is it the product of a group of Western historians looking at the past from one perspective, and missing the broader patterns? As you learned in the first lesson, two scholars, Bob Bain and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, have suggested strategies for us to understand the problems of a narrative like this one. But it's just as important for you to actually look at the evidence used in this course. Armed with evidence, you will be able to support, extend, or critique this narrative by viewing the world in the year 1750 through three frames. Each of these frames is like a filter through which we can look at the evidence from a unique perspective. Communities: A world of states and identities Through a series of articles focused on different regions of the world, we will explore the diversity of human communities in 1750. We will encounter states, from small chieftaincies to larger kingdoms, confederations, and sultanates to vast empires. Some people lived in empires that had existed for centuries – the Ottoman Empire in North Africa and around the Mediterranean and Red Sea, the Mughal Sultanate in South Asia, and the Habsburg Empire in Europe were particularly old. In China, the Qing Dynasty was relatively new, but it ruled a vast and ancient state. Meanwhile, the rulers of Russia were fast becoming conquerors of a vast landmass. In the Atlantic, small European states were busily building large, oceanic empires. We will see how people in states of all sizes identified as members of religious communities. Large, widespread religions like Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism spanned many countries, sometimes closely tied to governments, sometimes not. In some cases, these religious communities appeared in little pockets across many states. This was particularly true of Judaism. Other people had identities as members of smaller, more local religious communities. We all have layers of identity that shape how we understand the world and our place in it, and so did the people of 1750. This course will bring those layers of identity into clearer view. Production and distribution: Doing business globally People's lives were also shaped through their participation in systems of production and distribution in these years. In 1750, the word economics had not even been invented, but it is the modern theory of economics that gives us terms like production and distribution. People everywhere had already been making or growing things, processing them, trading or selling them, and consuming them for some time. We will see how most of what was made or grown was still produced by families or small groups of people and consumed by them or their neighbors. But there was also unprecedented trade and commerce. In fact, by this period, there were companies whose reach, for the first time, spanned the world. These massive companies, like the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company, and others, were in many ways the models for the modern multi-national corporation. They made their investors and directors as wealthy as kings by trading for goods in Asia and Africa and extracting raw materials from colonies in the Americas. Based in Europe, they are evidence we can use in understanding the so-called "Rise of the West" in economic terms. Painting of an East India company official sitting on a rug while Indian’s walk by wearing white robes.Portrait of an East India Company official, likely William Fullerton of Rosemount, who joined the East India Company's service in 1744. He became mayor of Calcutta in 1757. By Dip Chand, circa 1764, Public Domain. Painting of an East India company official sitting on a rug while Indian’s walk by wearing white robes. Portrait of an East India Company official, likely William Fullerton of Rosemount, who joined the East India Company's service in 1744. He became mayor of Calcutta in 1757. By Dip Chand, circa 1764, Public Domain. And yet, there is plenty of evidence that, in terms of production and distribution, the "West" was not in the driver's seat at this time. Indeed, these companies existed largely because Europeans wanted access to the wealth of Asia. India was the world's largest producer of cloth, which was in particularly high demand. Even more desirable were the fine goods produced by the Qing state of China, the world's largest economy in 1750. European merchants were desperate to break into Chinese markets, but the Chinese leadership was not impressed enough by European goods to start trading. Networks: Connections across and around the world You will assemble a picture of production and distribution in 1750 by looking at the economies of different regions of the world as well as some evidence of global patterns. Thinking about patterns gets even more interesting, because that is what leads us to the vital consideration of networks. The more you look into them, these economic patterns will start to mirror the networks of ideas, culture, and language that connected people across regions. Those networks were key to bringing together many different concepts, innovations, and cultural ideas in some regions at this time. Cities became centers where people and worldviews met and mixed. For example, the creole cities of the Americas were inhabited by a potent mix of indigenous American, African, and European cultures. This kind of fusion also occurred wherever there was large-scale migration, in places like Manila in the Philippine Islands and Cape Town in Africa. In western Europe, knowledge brought back by merchants and other travelers from many parts of the world created the conditions for intellectual leaps and political changes – and we'll jump into that in the next unit. This build-up again points to a "Rise of the West" narrative, but it is important to remember what some historians of the past left out of the story: much of the knowledge and many of the ideas came from other parts of the world. The next three units will all focus on massive transformations – political, economic, and social – that occurred between 1750 and 1914, and helped shape the modern world. But to evaluate and find meaning in these changes, we must understand their starting point, in 1750. That starting point is the purpose of this unit. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How, according to the author, did the Seven Years War help lead to both the American and French Revolutions?What were the results of the American Revolution in terms of achieving independence? What were the results in terms of creating an egalitarian society?How did the French Revolution transform France? What was not transformed?Why, according to the author, was the Haitian Revolution the most radical of them all?What fears, according to the author, led to internal divisions within the Latin American revolutions? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article lists a bunch of different revolutions, and some were more revolutionary than others. What sort of things can political revolutions change? Are there any limits on the change these sorts of revolutions can bring? Why or why not? What are the limits? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Atlantic Revolutions By Malcolm F. Purinton Revolutions can be contagious. In five short decades from 1775 to 1825, several revolutions in the Americas and Europe brought down the colonial system and European monarchies that had been profiting from it. An era of revolutions Between 1775 and 1825, revolutions across the Americas and Europe changed the maps and governments of the Atlantic world. Within 50 years, the European empires in the Americas would shrink and new nations would spread across the whole of the Americas. Revolutionaries were inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment including individual freedom. But they also rejected the authority of distant aristocratic rulers. Revolutionary leaders established new countries that only sometimes lived up to promises of democratic rule. The American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, and the many revolutions of Latin America were connected through networks of ideas, trade, and global events that rocked the world over a few dramatic decades. For much of the eighteenth century, European empires fought each other all over the globe. The British Empire won the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), but the victory was expensive, and it put the empire into debt. France was defeated, humiliated, and in even more debt than the British. The debt from this huge war helped spark the American and French Revolutions. Both governments attempted to pay off their loans by taxing subjects who had little say in the matter. For Britain, taxing their American colonies seemed like a great idea, but after such a long time of self-rule and near autonomy, the colonists in North America had ideas of their own. A badly damaged British ship after a battle near Havana, Cuba. This kinda thing isn’t cheap. By Rafael Monleón Torres, Public domain. The American Revolution Beginning with the Stamp Act of 1765, Great Britain tried and failed to raise revenue from their subjects in the American colonies. The colonists protested these heavy-handed taxes and rioted in the streets. In 1773, the British imposed a new tax, known as the Tea Act. In response, several men from Boston dressed up as Indigenous Americans and threw tea from British ships into Boston harbor. In response, the British announced the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts in 1774, which closed Boston's harbor, curtailed local elections, and expanded the power of the royal governor. In September of 1774, the colonists called the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia and decided not to allow any concessions to the Crown. In April of the following year, fighting began between British and American troops in Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. A painting depicting Bostonians tar and feathering a tax-collector while the Boston Tea Party takes place in the background. By John Carter Brown Library, public domain. During the Second Continental Congress in 1776, the representatives adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4. This document declared the sovereignty of the American states and listed the natural rights of mankind. In 1777, French volunteers began arriving in support of the revolution, and in 1778 the French government officially allied itself with the new American country against the British. Other countries also supported the Americans, including the Spanish and Dutch, who declared war on Great Britain in 1779 and 1780. The cost of the war and pressure from their European rivals was too much for the English. So they finally recognized the independence of the 13 North American colonies in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. A new nation was born, but it was not entirely egalitarian. For one thing, despite winning their own independence, the leaders of the United States of America continued to enslave millions of people living in this new country. The French Revolution As French soldiers returned home from the Seven Years' War, they came home to a nearly bankrupt monarchical regime. The nobility and clergy blocked King Louis XVI's attempts to raise taxes. To change the laws, the king called a representative body known as the Estates General in 1788. It hadn't met since 1614. The French populace was divided into three estates. The First Estate was the clergy, the Second Estate was the nobility, and the Third Estate was everyone else. The first two estates had many privileges while the Third Estate paid all the taxes and normally didn't have any voice in the government or in making laws. When the king called the Estates General, the Third Estate suddenly had a voice. The storming of the Bastille, royal prison in Paris to seize weapons and free political prisoners on July 14, 1789. From the Library of Congress, public domain. In May of 1789, the opening session of the Estates General was deadlocked. Though the Third Estate represented many more people and had twice the number of delegates, each estate had an equal vote. In June, the Third Estate met alone and declared itself the National Assembly. Feeling threatened by this development, King Louis XVI sent an army towards Paris. On July 14th, the Parisians responded by storming the royal prison, called the Bastille. There, they freed a handful of prisoners, seized weapons to defend the city, and beheaded two officials. The king backed down, but the country was now in revolt, not just in the cities but across the countryside. By the end of the summer of 1789, all the privileges of the nobility and the church were abolished, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen declared that all citizens were equal before the law and had individual rights. Within the next two years France would completely abolish the nobility and pass its own constitution, establishing a representative democracy. The French Empire strikes back The leaders of the French Revolution were inspired by the American Revolution with its established representative democracy. Using the language of the Enlightenment, they initially tried to promote harmony between France's social classes and establish a constitutional monarchy with King Louis still on a throne. But the revolution soon turned more violent and radical as peasants attacked castles and burned records of their debts. The new government seized and sold church lands. In 1793, King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antionette were both executed by guillotine and a French Republic was declared. Understandably, the other European monarchs were pretty shocked. The first French Republic radically changed the political and social structure of the country. It demolished traditional power structures and transformed how the country was organized and ruled. The National Assembly ended the privileges of the nobles and ended feudalism in France. They even briefly abolished slavery, which would have a strong effect in the French Caribbean colony of Saint Domingue. But the republic was short-lived. A powerful and popular general named Napoleon Bonaparte soon rose to power and declared himself emperor in 1799. His armies nearly conquered all of Europe. Everywhere the French went, they ended feudalism, promoted equal rights and religious tolerance, and modernized government administrations. But, as liberating as that sounds, Napoleon also enforced French values and authority with an iron fist. Napoleon’s army fighting the Russians during the Napoleonic Wars. By Viktor Mazurovsky, public domain. A revolt leads to a new nation Back across the Atlantic Ocean, the people of the French colony of Saint Domingue (now Haiti) on the island of Hispaniola were watching the French Revolution very closely. The French colony was the richest plantation colony in the world, with around 8,000 plantations that produced 40 percent of the world's sugar and about half of its coffee. The colony made these profits through enslaved labor. There were around 500,000 enslaved people living in Saint Domingue along with around 30,000 free people of color and 40,000 whites. The white population were themselves sharply divided between wealthy plantation owners, known as grands blancs, and poor whites—known as petits blancs. The social structure of the colony was very unstable, as whites, free people of color, and the enslaved population who made up over 90 percent of the colony each had their own grievances. The rich colony was structured around rampant exploitation and enormous inequalities. In 1791, it revolted in the most radical of all the revolutions of this era. The Haitian Revolution (1791-1808) was, more than any other, a social revolution for human rights and equality regardless of skin color. It began with a revolt of enslaved people in 1791 after the National Assembly abolished slavery. The Haitian Revolution established the second independent republic in the Americas and the first independent nation-state ruled by people of African descent. Toussaint Louverture emerged as the leader of the revolution. He managed to overcome internal resistance in the colony and outmaneuver foreign powers like the Spanish and British. He was a brilliant general who defeated Napoleon's attempt to regain French control over the colony. The nation of Haiti formally declared its independence on January 1, 1804. It rejected European racist hierarchies and defined all Haitians as "black." The plantation system was dismantled, and Haiti became a nation of subsistence farmers who worked their own land. The colony of Saint Domingue on the western half of the island of Hispaniola that would soon become the nation of Haiti. By Aldan-2, CC BY-SA 4.0. The Latin American revolutions Can you imagine a United States of Latin America? In the early nineteenth century, some Latin American revolutionaries wanted exactly that. But a unified Latin America remained a dream only. In North America, colonists fought off the British. In France, the lower classes overthrew the Old Regime. In Haiti, the enslaved fought off the French and overthrew the wealthy plantation owners. And in Latin America—well that wasn't so clear at the start. The Creole population led the revolutions initially. The Creole are people of Spanish or Portuguese descent born in the Americas. They revolted in response to events happening in Europe. In 1808, Napoleon invaded and conquered Spain and Portugal—the two colonial powers that controlled Latin America. Suddenly, the Latin American colonies found themselves without a direct European power telling them what to do. In 1810, peasants in Mexico revolted because they wanted their own land and because food prices were too high. Two priests—Miguel Hidalgo and José Morelos—led the insurrection, but it was eventually put down by wealthy Creole landowners with the support of the Catholic Church. Both the Creoles and the church were alarmed by the social radicalism of the revolt and worried that it would end like the French and Haitian revolutions. A less radical declaration of independence followed in 1821 through an alliance of rich Creole elites and more conservative clergy. Fear of rebellions as violent as the Haitian and French revolutions loomed over the Latin American revolutions from 1810 to 1825. Divisions along racial, class, and ideological lines frequently led to violence. In the northern regions of Latin America, the revolutionary general Simón Bolívar successfully fought Spanish forces and created a short-lived "Gran Columbia" between 1819 and 1830 that was modeled after the United States. Haitian revolutionaries fighting for independence in 1802. By Auguste Raffet, public domain. José de San Martín being received by the congress of Buenos Aires in 1818. From the Instituto Nacional Sanmartiniano, by Reynaldo Giúdice, public domain. Bolívar had the support of the relatively new nation of Haiti, and he visited that country twice. Haiti even sent soldiers and weapons to help Bolívar fight the Spanish. José de San Martín—another liberal revolutionary—led a revolt against the Spanish in southern Latin America. These revolutions did not lead to long-lasting constitutional republics and were soon replaced by rulers who cared more about power than the liberal ideas that allowed them to rule in the first place and who ruled on the basis of populist politics, family networks, and military strength. Though each of these revolutions had its own origins, important figures, and results, they were all tied together by three things. First, Enlightenment ideas and ideals inspired all of them. Second, each revolution rejected rule without representation. Finally, they were connected by economic and political networks. It's not as if all revolutions challenged every issue. The Haitian Revolution was the most radical. The others resulted in political change—rather than social or economic change. Nevertheless, it was a remarkable era in history that led to the creation of new nations and the beginning of the end for the Old Regime in Europe and European colonialism in the Americas. Author bio Malcolm F. Purinton is a part-time lecturer of World History and the History of Modern Europe at Northeastern University and Emmanuel College in Boston, MA. He specializes in Food and Environmental History through the lens of beer and alcohol. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: The author argues that the Enlightenment introduced the idea that the universe had rules, and that these rules could be understood by studying and examining the world around us. Why was this a revolutionary idea?The author also describes the Enlightenment as a political movement. What idea does she say was most revolutionary in this regard?The author also describes the Enlightenment as an economic, ethical, and religious phenomenon. What changing idea does she look at in this regard?According to the author, most Enlightenment thinkers wanted gradual and limited change. What evidence does she give for this argument?Some people pushed for a more revolutionary result from the Enlightenment. Who were they? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: After reading this argument, do you think the Enlightenment should be called “revolutionary”? Why or why not?How could the ideas expressed in the Enlightenment pave the way to political revolution? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Enlightenment Amy Elizabeth Robinson The Enlightenment was a period in history named not for its battles, but for its ideas. Still, the intellectual and cultural changes it introduced certainly contributed to many political revolutions around the world. Between the late seventeenth and late eighteenth centuries, there was a period of rapid intellectual change that came to be known as the Enlightenment. Thinkers, writers, artists, political leaders, and also new groups of "ordinary" people drove this major cultural and intellectual movement. They believed they were finally shining the "light" of reason on the natural and human worlds. In 1784, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that an "enlightened" understanding should start with the command: "Dare to know!" The Enlightenment shook the foundations of European intellectual life, but that wasn't all. It also had social, economic, and political consequences across the globe. To understand the role of the Enlightenment in world history, we need to look both at its ideas and their social setting. These were not sudden, light-bulb-above-your head ideas. They emerged from ongoing discussions among a variety of people. Enlightenment thinkers, writers, and artists—often called philosophes—were particularly active in Europe and European settler colonies. However, they were connected to growing networks that criss-crossed the globe. Novels, newspapers, and travel literature spread new ideas, and a sense of connection with others. Goods, information, and people moved more swiftly across the oceans. This growing connectedness, combined with a daring openness to change, made Enlightenment ideas the fuel that would power many revolutions. What was so enlightening about the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment started as a scientific and intellectual movement. But it was soon a political movement, with economic and cultural significance as well. Historians always have trouble describing it, but of course they still try. Eric Hobsbawm describes Enlightenment thinking as "not that of a system but of an attitude and a passion." Margaret Jacob says it was "a new cultural style of open-mindedness, investigation, and satire." Dorinda Outram talks more about eighteenth-century social context, and the rise of a "public sphere." Not all Enlightenment thinkers agreed about everything, but they were devoted to lively study, critique, and conversation. They met at public lectures, salons, coffeehouses, and new lending libraries, where they could cast "light" on questions that had lurked in darkness for centuries. Salons were gatherings of people who discussed the new ideas emerging with the Enlightenment. This portrait by Lemonnier, c. 1755, depicts a reading of one of Voltaire’s works in the salon of Marie Thérèse Rodet Geoffrin. Public domain. As a scientific and intellectual movement, the Enlightenment had roots in the Scientific Revolution. In 1687, Isaac Newton's Principia had introduced "rational mechanics" into the study of mathematics and astronomy. Following Newton, Enlightenment thinkers believed that a "natural law" could be discovered underneath all aspects of life. But they did not think that people could discover this law if they only learned from religious texts and leaders. Rather, it would be found by examining the world around them. As a political movement, some historians trace the Enlightenment to the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. That's when King James of England, Ireland, and Scotland was deposed and replaced by his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange. William was the stadtholder (ruler) of the Dutch Republic, a flourishing economic and intellectual center. People in the Dutch Republic and in the new British constitutional monarchy of 1688 were already trying out new forms of government. Although they still had monarchs, both had representative parliaments, a tradition of "rights," and more religious freedom than most other European states. Soon after the Glorious Revolution, the philosopher John Locke published Two Treatises of Government (1690), arguing that government should be formed through a contract between people and their ruler, rather than through ideas of religious hierarchy or divine will. Plate 12 from The First Book of Urizen (1794). William Blake, public domain. Albion Rose,” from A Large Book of Designs (1793-96). William Blake, public domain. The Enlightenment had economic, ethical, and religious aspects, too. In the 1690s, Locke was a shareholder in the Royal African Company, which was profiting from the enslavement of Africans. He argued that slavery was okay if it resulted from "just war" (meaning the war was justified). After all, he believed firmly in the right to private property, and enslaved people were considered property. But Locke rejected the idea that there were any intrinsic differences between humans from different places, with different religious beliefs or skin tones. Over the course of the eighteenth century, most Enlightenment thinkers took Locke's lead and emphasized a sense of shared humanity. Yet African enslavement kept growing. Profits from this trade contributed to the growth of European port cities and new industrial centers. Enlightenment thinkers increasingly struggled with the fact that the apparent "progress" of the world around them depended on the horrible violence of slavery. Locke's hypocritical position—of expressing one thing, but profiting economically from the opposite—became harder to maintain. Religious groups like the Quakers, and philosophes like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith, called for the abolition of slavery. "From whatever aspect we regard the question," wrote Rousseau, "the right of slavery is null and void…The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive" (The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter IV). The Enlightenment and historical "progress" Who could participate in the networks that made up the Enlightenment, and who could benefit from them? More and more people may have been involved in the conversation, but there were still voices that had trouble being heard. Many philosophes believed that women, children, working people, and people from colonies or conquered territories were less developed than white European men, and not ready for full inclusion. Enlightened educational and social institutions were supposed to "prepare" these people to become better, more "reasonable" citizens of modern states. Most abolitionists believed slavery should end only gradually. Portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie, c. 1797. Public domain. The idea of women having a political voice was almost nonexistent. One of the eighteenth century's most revolutionary thinkers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, still believed that the goal of women's education should be to please men. The English intellectual Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792. It was a groundbreaking call for universal education, but it was based on the idea that educated women would make better mothers and teachers of children. This, she believed, was their primary role as citizens. And even at the end of the century, French revolutionaries declared the "rights of man and of the citizen," rather than universal human rights. These perspectives reflected popular ideas about development and difference. Scottish Enlightenment philosophers William Robertson and Adam Smith believed that societies moved through specific stages of development. This was part of the "natural law" they believed they were discovering. First, people were hunters, then they were pastoralists, then they began to own land privately and farm. Finally, they invented money, goods could move around, and people could engage in commerce and trade. The pace of invention and the accumulation of wealth in Europe just seemed to confirm these beliefs. "Everything in the universe," wrote the Comte de Mirabeau, a leader of the French Revolution, "is commerce." In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith presented his vision for a functioning global economy. It depended, among other things, on free trade. Like most Enlightenment thinkers, Smith believed that if confining institutions and "prejudices" were abolished, and humans were given the freedom to make economic decisions, a common good would naturally arise. This idea was called laissez-faire, or "let it happen". Smith agreed that humans weren't there yet, though. He believed modern states should provide public services and education when market mechanisms could not. But his "enlightened" ideas about free markets really took off. They became the intellectual foundation for the expansion of modern capitalism as a system of production and distribution. Ideas about private property, human development, and commercial "progress" were also used to justify colonial occupations and conquest. So was the Enlightenment really that revolutionary? Historians disagree about whether the Enlightenment just made small changes, or if it was truly revolutionary. Yes, it provided new tools for examining the world, and expanded a sense of shared humanity. But there was little immediate change to social and economic inequality, despite all the talk. European Enlightenment philosophes were typically white, male, and well-off, and benefited from the rapid changes happening around them. They had a reason to want to reform existing institutions without turning everything upside down. Other people, usually further outside this circle, had less to lose. Calls for radical and even revolutionary change grew louder as more people saw the widening gap between what the Enlightenment said it stood for, and what was actually happening. Portrait of Olaudah Equiano, from the frontispiece to The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Or Gustavus Vassa, the African (1789). Public domain. Who were these rebels pushing the Enlightenment to become more radical? "What was most vigorous" in Enlightenment debates, historians Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker say, "did not come from any single national experience." They argue that a transnational, multiracial working class—meeting on ships and in port cities across the Atlantic—played an important role in demanding radical change. They call this a "universalism from below." Olaudah Equiano, who had been both an enslaved laborer and a sailor, became a leading voice in the abolitionist movement. Another abolitionist, French playwright Olympe de Gouges, wrote a Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen in 1791. "The mothers, daughters, and sisters who represent the nation demand to form a national assembly," she declared, making it clear that women had been excluded from France's Enlightenment vision. In Latin America, Enlightenment thinkers like José Antonio de Alzate y Ramirez criticized William Robertson's ideas about indigenous history and the "natural" development of societies. Alzate y Ramirez rejected the rigid "natural laws" supposedly "discovered" by faraway philosophers. Instead, he said that local scholars had a better grasp of Amerindian society. He helped to lay intellectual foundations for Latin American independence movements in the nineteenth century. But despite these widening demands for liberty, wealthy and influential bourgeois elites continued to hold the power. In some ways, modern states actually acquired more power over people's everyday lives, through mapping, taxation, education, and the regulation of labor. "Citizenship" was a powerful rallying cry for political participation, but it also left people out. Even revolutionary pamphleteers1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript like the American Thomas Paine, author of Rights of Man (1791) could be overly cautious. Paine feared the power of "popular disquietudes [anxiety]…the desperate and the discontented" who, "by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge [flood]." So the Enlightenment left a complicated legacy, both liberating and imposing limits on change. Perhaps it is best to think of it as a process, rather than a single thing. Even today, whether you examine microscopic cells in a science classroom, write a novel in a café, or carry a protest sign in the street, you may be engaging in a process of "enlightened" thought and critique. [Notes] Author bio Amy Elizabeth Robinson is a freelance writer, editor, and historian with a PhD in the history of Britain and the British Empire. She has taught at Sonoma State University and Stanford University. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What was Manuela Sáenz’ status when she was growing up?How did Manuela’s father try to teach her to be obedient, and what was the result?Who were Manuela Sáenz’ companions, and why don’t we know a lot about them?How did Manuela, Jonatas, and Natan serve Simón Bolívar and the revolutionaries?How does the artist show Manuela’s attempt to break out of confinement using art?How does the artist portray Jonotas and Natan? Why does she make this choice? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of Manuela Sáenz support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about social transformations and their limits during the long nineteenth century? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Manuela Sáenz, Jonotas, and Natan (Graphic Biography) Writer: Sean Bloch Artist: Liz Clarke Manuela Sáenz was a Latin American woman who strove to reconcile feminism with support for revolution. She and her compatriots Jonotas and Natan were spies and revolutionaries. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: When and where was Edmund Burke born? Who ruled the place where he was born?What, according to the author, was the major political contest in Britain during this period? What did each side believe?In what ways was Burke a liberal? In what ways was he a conservative?What were the events that made Burke fear too rapid change and too much democracy?How does the artist use art and design to demonstrate Burke’s position as both a liberal and a conservative? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: We generally speak of political revolutions in this period as bringing more liberties and being a good thing. Does Burke’s biography challenge that assumption? How?How could the rise of liberalism in this period also lead to the rise of political conservatism? Does this biography provide any clues to help you to answer this question? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Edmund Burke (Graphic Biography) Writer: Trevor Getz Artist: Liz Clarke The “father of modern conservatism” was a British political figure and philosopher who was an important leader of the liberal transformation of the eighteenth century. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What is a citizen, and how is the idea of popular sovereignty important to creating citizens?Thomas Hobbes was an important thinker from this period who wrote a book called Leviathan about popular sovereignty. How does the image from Leviathan express that idea?The author argues that sovereignty left people out. What are examples she gives?Beyond just being left out, the author argues that sovereignty for some actually meant that others could lose rights. How does she make this argument? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: What do you think is actually the author’s main argument about sovereignty, and do you agree? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Sovereignty By Eman M. Elshaikh A dictionary definition isn’t much help when trying to grasp the important concept of sovereignty. But understanding how radically it changed people’s personal and political lives is a good start. Introduction In the wake of the Enlightenment, many societies around the world pursued sovereignty—the right and the power of a person or a nation to govern themselves. Sovereignty is a broad term that influences many modern concepts such as identity, individuality, and rationality (the use of reason). These ideas developed together during the long nineteenth century and were connected to the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. Without the concept of sovereignty, however, they would make no sense. Sovereignty and liberal ideals The long nineteenth century saw many changes including growing distrust in the authority of monarchs and religious institutions, and more interest in individualism, freedom, and rationality. These liberal political ideals (goals for perfection) generally placed a lot of importance on the people as a source of political power. One expression of this was the concept of popular sovereignty, the belief that a state's power comes from the consent of the people. According to these ideas, a government is only legitimate if it represents the needs and ideas of the people who are governed. Image from Leviathan, a book written by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and published in 1651. Though this book was published in the early modern period, the image of the Leviathan as a large body composed of many individuals was powerful for centuries after. By Unknown, Public Domain. In an absolute monarchy, sovereignty is in the hands of the king or queen. In other words, the state is whatever the monarch says it is. Popular sovereignty, on the other hand, views the state as a political organization that makes possible the ruling of a specific territory. The people within this type of state are usually not passive as subjects, but rather are citizens, with actual political rights. Rather than passively obeying the ruler, citizens could take an active role in the political process. This meant that popular sovereignty also encouraged the recognition of the individual and individual rights. Believe it or not, it was unusual to suggest that an individual who wasn't a ruler was rational and deserved autonomy, or self-governance. That meant that society and government were only legitimate when they helped individuals achieve their goals and protected their rights. Today we may take this for granted, but at the time this was a pretty new, even revolutionary concept. Sovereignty for whom? We must not confuse sovereignty with equality or civil rights. Although citizens had rights, that didn't necessarily mean that all citizens had the same rights in practice, or that everyone in a society could be considered a citizen. So, who got left out? A person's ability to participate in government—and to govern themselves—was often dependent on their class, race, and gender. Typically, in Europe and European colonies, only white land-owning males were truly independent. The conquered people of the colonies didn't become citizens. Similarly, enslaved people, working-class people, and women weren't given the same kinds of rights. In other words, personal sovereignty and autonomy were luxuries offered to a very small segment of society. In fact, in many ways, the achievement of sovereignty for some resulted in the loss freedom for others. For example, in several sovereign democracies like the United States, slavery was still legal, thriving, and important to the economy. Need a powerful example of how sovereignty does not mean equality? Just look at the American Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787. In this agreement, each enslaved person was counted as three-fifths of a full citizen for the purposes of determining representation (the right to vote) and taxation. In this case, the inclusion of enslaved people was seen as compatible with popular sovereignty for other people, but… three-fifths? Slavery is already fundamentally dehumanizing, but to have your humanity mathematically downgraded is one of history's most literal and glaring examples of inequality. Women, workers, and children The same is true for most children. Middle- and upper-class families in Europe and the Americas got to enjoy new values of familial love and innocence. Educating your children instead of putting them to work was a privilege. In places like Japan, children were seen as especially vulnerable, and there were many government programs designed to protect children during this fragile phase in life. However, if you weren't part of the small privileged class, or in Japan, it was another story. Under slavery and colonialism, children were forcibly separated from their parents. Enslaved children were sold, and indigenous children were sometimes sent away from their families. Also, within the colonies, many children of mixed heritage were born outside of marriage. Because of race laws and the realities of colonial hierarchies, mixed children would almost never get to be a part of a cohesive family unit. In colonial settings, many children were seen as the subjects of colonial masters, and working conditions could be pretty harsh. Whether through indentured labor or wage labor, children in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and India continued to labor in plantations, factories, and mines. They also often worked as household servants. In other parts of the world, like in China, classical values like obedience and hard work continued to shape children's lives. Women were also often left out when it came to personal sovereignty. Some Enlightenment thinkers still saw women as inferior to men, while others pushed for women's equality. However, women also differed across race, class, and region. Working class women, women of color, and colonial subjects didn't have access to these new social and educational opportunities. In most places, women of the lower classes took on new roles out of economic need. Many single mothers had to work to support their families. Mary Wollstonecraft was a notable Enlightenment figure, and she was a strong proponent of equality for women. By John Opie, Public Domain. Citizenship and the modern subject Let's not forget that all these cultural and social shifts were about much more than just a single issue. Rather, peoples' entire relationship to the state was being altered. Some found that the state now gave them freedom to control their lives and bodies, while others found they had less control. For example, women were increasingly valued as those responsible for raising the next generation of citizens. To educate their children and ensure their full political participation, mothers needed to be educated too. Motherhood became a political act! This created new opportunities for women, but it also meant that a woman's decision whether to have children at all was not necessarily hers to make. Children, too, came to be controlled more—partly through schools. Schools tried to promote children's health and protect them from abuse, but also control their daily activity. In Canada, Australia, and the United States, governments often forced indigenous children into boarding schools. The purpose was to change behaviors that colonists saw as problematic. That usually meant getting them to adopt European traditions and customs and leave their own behind. Similarly, in British India, school was used to instill European values in students with the goal of making them more useful as colonial subjects. So, while Enlightenment ideas about citizenship, sovereignty, and autonomy changed the face of the globe, it's important to remember that these changes were very uneven. Through the modern period and into the twenty-first century, different groups of people have been included and excluded from these values. However, these ideas surrounding personal sovereignty have continued to influence many political institutions to this day. Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

You Say You Want a Revolution By Saul Straussman A lot of stuff changed for people around the world as a result of several movements that converged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For example, due to the Age of Exploration, goods from eastern Asia were made available in Europe in greater quantities than ever before. Likewise, goods from the Americas were made integral to the people of Afro-Eurasia. Never before had so much stuff and so many people been moved around the globe at such a great rate. However, there wasn’t just a transfer of goods and people to new places but also the exchange of new ideas. As the Age of Exploration and the Columbian Exchange progressed, Europeans began to colonize other parts of the world, particularly the Americas. At the same time, Enlightenment thinkers started to question the idea of liberty and what that actually meant. For some Enlightenment thinkers, liberty was about popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the idea that the citizens of a nation need to enter into a contract with the government in order for it to be legitimate. Think about that for a moment, because in the 1700s pretty much all of the governments that existed around the world were monarchies, and nobody was voting for who would be the king. So where did this idea of liberty or popular sovereignty come from? In large part the idea of liberty was best articulated by the English philosopher John Locke (1632 — 1704). For Locke, the idea of popular sovereignty was synonymous with his belief that “All people have the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.” Natural rights, according to Enlightenment thinkers, are those rights that we are born with and that no entity (that is, government) has the right to take away. If I break down each part of that short statement, I can determine that Locke believed that once born we have a right to live a good life without being subjugated to the whims of rulers; that we are all equals; and that we have a right to acquire wealth and that wealth should be protected. Locke continued this thought by stating the origin and purpose of any government: “The power of government comes from the people and the duty of the government therefore is to protect those natural rights.” (qtd. in Tierney 94) So those three natural rights we have — life, liberty, and property — should be safeguarded by a government, which is elected by the people. If that’s the case, then the next question would be what if the government fails at that task? According to Locke, “If the government fails in its duty to protect those rights, then the people have the right to overthrow the government, by force if necessary.” (qtd. in Tierney 94) Wow! Now if you were a seventeenth-century monarch who believed very strongly that your right to rule was given to you by God, and that only God could take away your power, this idea of Locke’s would not only be bizarre it would be treasonous. Imagine if people took this idea of Locke’s seriously! These ideas might just start a revolution. Causes of revolution in the Atlantic World Prior to the 1760s, the ideas expressed by the cahier (another term for the Enlightenment thinkers) were mostly theoretical. While many people read their ideas, who would be crazy enough to actually put them into action? Well, it would seem that these ideas were the ingredients for revolution but the Goldilocks Conditions were a series of unfortunate events that caused people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean to begin questioning their relationship to the government. Many historians point to the Seven Years War in Europe (known as the French and Indian War in North America) as a leading cause for creating the conditions necessary for revolutions to begin on both sides of the Atlantic. Great Britain was victorious over the French and, as a result, gained all of France’s territories in Canada and India. That sounds like a great thing for the British, but the war between England and France was rather costly and left both sides heavily in debt. The question then became how to pay off that debt and for Great Britain the answer was clear. The American colonists would foot the bill for the war because the victory and acquisition of new territory made them more secure. And how did governments get money from the people? Taxes. In fact, there is a common thread of burdensome taxes, whether real or perceived, that provided much of the fuel for the Atlantic revolutions between 1775 and 1830. The words of the Enlightenment thinkers thus provided the justification for getting rid of the ruling governments and their taxes. To help pay for the Seven Years War, the British government passed the Stamp Act, a tax on goods in the Americas to help defray “ the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing” the American colonies. This tax was known as the Stamp Act because the government would place a stamp on the article to prove that the appropriate tax had been paid. Needless to say, the American colonists were not happy about this tax. But the question is why? The purpose of the tax seems clear enough; its goal was to help pay the cost of defending the colonies. One of the more vocal colonists to express his outrage about this and other taxes was Patrick Henry. For Henry, the actions of the British government were about more than taxation, they were about his rights. In his speech to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, Henry outlines all the steps the colonists took to fix the tax problem, but to no avail: We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!...I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! For Patrick Henry, this was not about taxes; it was about the fact that the government in London ignored the colonists’ wishes. Henry cites a long list of attempts to get the attention of Parliament. Each time, according to Henry, the colonists were at best ignored and at worst they were treated badly. Since the government had decided to not only ignore the colonists but to impose its will upon them, then — according to the ideas of John Locke — the colonists were well within their rights to throw off this government. What does this mean? Revolution! There was a similar situation playing out across the ocean in France a few years later. The French people were also being forced to pay for France’s debts due to the Seven Years War and her support of the Americans in their revolution against Britain. At this time, French society was divided up into three big groups called Estates. The First Estate consisted of the clergy, the Second Estate included nobles, and the Third Estate was made up of everyone else. Historians figure that about three percent of the population were in the First and Second Estates, which meant the Third Estate included about 97 percent of the population. Because the First and Second Estates were exempt from paying most of the king’s taxes, the burden for paying for these wars fell on the people who could least afford it. The members of the Third Estate attempted to present their complaints to King Louis XVI in the form of a petition or cahiers de doléances. On March 29, 1789, the citizens from the county of Dourdan presented their grievances and demands to the king. The underlying sentiment of their cahier is equality. 1. That his subjects of the third estate, equal by such status to all other citizens, present themselves before the common father without other distinction which might degrade them…. 3. That no citizen lose his liberty except according to law; that, consequently, no one be arrested by virtue of special orders, or, if imperative circumstances necessitate such orders, that the prisoner be handed over to the regular courts of justice within forty-eight hours at the latest…. 5. That the property of all citizens be inviolable, and that no one be required to make sacrifice thereof for the public welfare, except upon assurance of indemnification based upon the statement of freely selected appraisers. (qtd. in Stewart 76 — 7) Within this cahier I can see all three of John Locke’s ideas of life, liberty, and property. For example, the first grievance is about the right to equality and to lead a life free from being oppressed just because of one’s class or station. Likewise, the next item notes that all citizens have a right to their liberty and to be treated equally under the law. Finally, the last item notes that all people have a right to their property and the state cannot take it without providing fair compensation for what was lost. While these demands probably appeared reasonable to the individuals making them, the king was at a loss in how to deal with them. Besides not being a terrifically able leader, King Louis XVI was unable to get the other two estates to agree to pay some of the taxes. Louis’ inability to lift the tax burden from the Third Estate ultimately provided the justification for that group to revolt against a government that did not protect their rights to life, liberty, and property. The French Revolution, while successful in the short term in that the French people replaced the monarch with a National Assembly composed of members of the Third Estate, was longer, bloodier, and ultimately a failure when compared to the American Revolution. What is fascinating is how this idea of liberty changed as it bounced back and forth across the Atlantic. For instance, in the French colony of Saint Domingue (modernday Haiti), the idea of liberty was interpreted as being only for the free people of the island. The island’s population consisted of three distinct groups: whites, gens de couleur libres (free people of mixed European and African ancestry), and slaves, with almost 90 percent of the population classified as slaves. However, according to the laws of the time, only whites were accorded French citizenship. Once again, the ideas of liberty as espoused by Locke, and successfully implemented by the Americans a few years earlier, led a group of free people of color to petition the newly enacted National Assembly of the French Revolution. Using the same logic as the petitioners in Dourdan, the following demands were made: Article I. The inhabitants of the French colonies are exclusively and generally divided into two classes, Freemen and those who are born, and live, in slavery Article II. The class of Freemen includes not only all the Whites, but also all of the colored Creoles, the Free Blacks, Mulattos, small minorities, and others. Article III. The freed Creoles, as well as their children and their descendants, should have the same rights, rank, prerogatives, exemptions, and privileges as other colonists. Article IV. For that purpose, the colored Creoles request that the Declaration of the Rights of Man, decreed by the National Assembly, be applied to them, as it is to Whites. Therefore, it is requested that Articles LVII and LIX of the Edict [the Black Code] dated March 1685, be rewritten and carried out in accordance with their form and content. (qtd. in Cohen 14) When comparing this text to the ideas of Locke, I can see how the petitioners built their argument for rights to the new revolutionary government of France. They acknowledge a class of people without rights and then go on to state that there is a large group of free people who are not white, but of various backgrounds. The petitioners then note that they should have the same rights as any Frenchman — rights that had been spelled out in the revolutionary document “Declaration of the Rights of Man.” In order to achieve this equality, the colonists requested that a 100-year-old law (the Black Code) needed to be changed. However, even with this logic, their idea of liberty did not apply to the enslaved. The idea of liberty continued to change in its travels throughout the Atlantic world. In Mexico as in Haiti, people began discussing liberty and rights for people of mixed heritage (in this case for the mestizos — people of mixed Spanish and native heritage). In 1810, a priest named Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla rallied the people to revolt against Spain’s oppressive rule. One of the underlying causes was unjust taxation, but Hidalgo also infused nationalism and religion into the mix as he encouraged the people to revolt. My friends and countrymen: neither the king nor tributes exist for us any longer. We have borne this shameful tax, which only suits slaves, for three centuries as a sign of tyranny and servitude.... The moment of our freedom has arrived, the hour of our liberty has struck; and if you recognized its great value, you will help me defend it from the ambitious grasp of the tyrants.... [W]ithout a patria [fatherland] nor liberty we shall always be at a great distance from true happiness.... The cause is holy and God will protect it.... Long live, then, the Virgin of Guadalupe! Long live America for which we are going to fight! (qtd. in Cohen 15) While Locke’s idea of being able to overthrow a government that is not responsive to the people’s will is present in Hidalgo’s speech, the idea of liberty has changed to include a nationalist message. The revolt is not just against oppression; it is against foreign oppression (that is, Spain). Furthermore, Hidalgo provides religious justifications for the revolt too. However, this makes sense given that he was a priest and that in all likelihood many of his followers were believers. Even though Father Hidalgo’s revolt was unsuccessful, his ideas fueled additional resistance to Spain’s rule in Mexico, and in 1821 Mexico won its independence from Spain. Finally, in Venezuela, another Spanish colony, there were several groups struggling for liberty, but each group’s definition of this term was not the same. Economically and politically, the white privileged landowners were made up of two groups, the peninsulares (people born in Spain) and criollos (people of Spanish descent born in the Americas). Both were interested in selling their coffee and cocoa on the open market instead of being forced to only sell their goods to Spanish authorities. Members of the criollos usually worked as artisans, soldiers, and traders, and they wanted to have the same opportunities as the wealthier and more privileged peninsulares. Mestizos made up the largest group within Venezuela. They were generally peasants, or poor farmers. The mestizos were primarily interested in ending the privileges enjoyed by the landowners, but they were not interested in ending slavery. Slaves made up about 20 percent of the population of Venezuela, and their focus was on ending slavery. However, their status as a minority within the population did not provide them with much opportunity to force the issue. With so many competing interests, it is a wonder that any idea of liberty would take root. Interestingly, it was the French ruler Napoleon Bonaparte’s occupation of Spain in 1808 that provided Venezuelans the opportunity to declare their independence. The military junta (group of people who took over the country by force), led by the Venezuelan revolutionary Simón Bolivar, passed sweeping reforms. Trade restrictions were lifted, which gave white landowners the opportunity to trade with whomever they wished, thus providing this group with the economic liberty they desired. The junta also abolished taxes on food, which aided the criollos and mestizos; ended the tribute payments from native people, and abolished slavery. In a single stroke, all of the different groups achieved the liberty they desired. It should be noted that the Venezuelan revolution of 1808 was short-lived. After the French emperor Napoleon was defeated and exiled, the Spanish monarchy regained control of many of its colonies, including Venezuela in 1814. Many of the gains achieved by all groups were lost, including the abolishment of slavery. Fortunately, Spain’s hold on Venezuela would only last a few years and in 1819, Venezuela finally won its independence from Spain. Unfortunately, the slaves did not. (Chapman, 14 — 15) Conclusion The ideas of John Locke and the Enlightenment thinkers of the late seventeenth century and eighteenth century unleashed revolutionary forces that many of them could not have foreseen. The concept of liberty, in all of its forms, was a potent force that inspired people on both sides of the Atlantic to reject governments that did not respect their rights as individuals. However, as we saw, the rights that were won differed, depending on who was doing the fighting. But the idea of liberty, once unleashed, became a global force that inspired people first on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and then throughout the world. By the midnineteenth century, people throughout Europe and the Americas were demanding liberty from oppressive rule. Every country was not necessarily successful in gaining independence, but these ideas were certainly spreading. By the beginning of the twentieth century, this revolutionary spirit had spread to parts of the Middle East and Asia. In 1909, the last sultan of the Ottoman Empire was exiled after the Young Turk Revolution. And after thousands of years of being controlled by emperors, China was overtaken by a nationalist government led by Sun Yat-sen in 1912. Sun’s ideas on liberty and the role of government would influence both the nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek and the future communist leader of China, Mao Zedong. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How does the author define nationalism?How did the French, Haitian, and American revolutions help spread nationalism?How does the author explain the decline in religious identity during the Long Nineteenth Century?Why was it harder for Germans and Italians to build a unified nation-state than it was for the French? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The author argues that national identities have replaced traditional identities like religion. Is this true for you? What about for people you know, like grandparents or teachers? Do you see any new types of communities that people are identifying with in our world today?How do you think changes in communication helped spread nationalism through networks across the Atlantic Ocean? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Origins and Impacts of Nationalism By Malcolm F. Purinton Nations and nationalism are not very old but have had dramatic effects on how we view the world and each other. With the decline in the power of religion and religious authorities, people looked for a new way to identify themselves, they found this with their nations. What exactly is nationalism? The rise and spread of nationalism gave people a new sense of identity and also led to an increased sense of competition among nation-states. After Napoleon was defeated (twice!) several other European nations joined together to attempt to return to the old—conservative—ways with royal dynasties returning to their thrones. However, over the following century several revolutions across Europe would remove these royals from power. New constitutional governments led by citizens of these nation-states would take their place. These nations would then compete for colonies across the world in Africa, Eastern Asia, and Southeast Asia by the end of the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, nationalism would play a major role in the competition between nations. It was an extremely bloody competition that we now call World War I. It feels like we've always had countries, and people who believe their own country is the best. But in fact, nations and nationalism are only around 200 years old. If you think about how long people have been around and all the kinds of governments and kingdoms and empires they've built over thousands of years, nations are actually quite young! What is a nation? What is nationalism? We often think our nation is an important part of our identity—I am "American," "Indian," "Italian," "Chinese," and so on. But what does that really mean? How are you part of your country/nation? Well, nationalism begins with the idea that the whole of human society is divided into distinct, autonomous groups called nations. What is nation? A nation is a group of people speaking a common language, sharing a common culture, a sense of a common destiny, and sharing a common history. So, nationalism is also a term to describe the common bonds that hold people together within a nation, creating a new type of community. Tied to this is the idea that individuals' loyalty should be focused on the nation and that each nation should be able to determine its own future—an idea known as self-determination. So, nationalism is also the idea that the nation should have that right to govern itself and the right to self-determination. Finally, sometimes, nationalism is expressed in the belief that one's own nation is better than other nations. In those instances, it can become competitive or discriminatory. An elaborate satirical map reflecting the European nations in 1899. How are European nations represented? By Frederick W. Rose. Public domain. Nationalism bonds people together in a way that is not genetic, not biological, and not based on even having a personal connection with other members of your nation. In some ways the idea of a nation is actually an imaginary relationship and nations could be considered imagined communities because so much of the making of a nation is about creating unity and loyalty in our minds. It is not enough to just have a common government to make a nation—we must have shared cultural symbols like flags, national anthems, a shared idea of the history of our nations to create and build a community of a nation. Origins As noted earlier, nationalism is not very old. Before the very end of the eighteenth century (1700s), nationalism didn't even exist as a widespread cultural or political ideology! When people told you where they were from, they said the name of a village or town. How did we go from identifying ourselves by our town to identifying ourselves by our nation? Well, to understand that we need to look at some of the revolutions around the turn of the nineteenth century, especially in Europe, and what people were fighting for, and against. The French Revolutionary era had great importance in the development and spread of nationalism as an ideology. After French ruler Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power in 1799, he extended the central government of France into all the countries he conquered across Europe. This was after ten years of war within France, and by now the French people had gained a sense of cohesion against its enemies. Especially Great Britain. They were able to define themselves both as what they were—"We're French, ça va?!"—and what they were not—not English, not German, not Italian, nor anything else. The military victories of France helped to create a common sense of history and identity, making nationalism strongest in France. But here's the funny thing about nationalism: As Napoleon expanded and his armies occupied many other European countries, those other countries all agreed national self-determination was the way to go. It was like being bullied by someone who ends up showing you enough wrestling moves that you are able to defeat them. Uniting against the French regime created a sense of common destiny—a sense of nationalism. Napoléon Bonaparte in 1799 by François Bouchot. Public domain. Napoleon ended up unintentionally leading Europeans from old regimes of kings, queens, and subjects to new nations of citizens and parliaments, but that's not the only reason nationalism took hold. There were many other trends occurring at the same time including the growth in literacy, urban areas, and print culture (communicating through printed words and images). With the Enlightenment, education and literacy and the many forms of print were crucial to the spread of ideas. Common bonds formed between intellectuals and the reading public within countries. The most devoted nationalists in the early nineteenth century were actually secondary students and university students in urban areas! Peasants who were mostly illiterate and often shared very little in terms of common culture, were left out of the nationalism conversation. But peasants were still the majority of people in Europe, and their views would change for other reasons. Other reasons… Some historians have argued that nationalism became important because older loyalties became less important—which brings us to religion. For hundreds of years after the split of the Christian church into Catholic and Protestant, wars were fought over religious and dynastic loyalties. The Enlightenment weakened the hold of religion over many parts of the population by pointing out the abuses of the church and focusing on reason over religion. People soon lost trust in religious authorities. In addition, European dynasties had relied on absolutism to keep their subjects loyal. But between the Enlightenment ideas and the French Revolution, there were enough critiques against kings and queens to shift the people's loyalties. That made absolutism a lot less absolute. While nationalism has much to do with unity, its development often comes through the defining of differences. Russia in the nineteenth century is a great example. For Russians, nationalism wasn't just about customs, language, and history, though those mattered. Russian nationalists defined themselves as not part of the West—Western Europe. The Western European models of industrialization and constitutional governments had no appeal to Russian nationalists, who wanted to keep their rural and religious traditions, thank you very much. “St. Domingue: Prise De La Ravine Aux Couleuvres.” (Saint Domingue: Capture of Ravine-à-Couleuvres) Depiction of the Battle of Ravine-à-Couleuvres (23 February 1802), during the Haitian Revolution, by Jean Jacques Outhwaite. Public domain. Across the Atlantic in the Americas, nationalism got going even earlier than in Europe. The national liberation revolutions of the United States and Haiti were tied to similar Enlightenment ideals, though having a national language was less of a factor. As historian Benedict Anderson points out, the creole states in the Americas shared common languages with the colonizing countries of Europe. The connections between the American colonies and the European countries ruling them likely helped the spread of Enlightenment and national ideas. Even as Napoleon's armies overran most of Continental Europe, Toussaint L'Ouverture helped establish the second independent republic in the Western hemisphere in Haiti in 1804. After several hundred years of European colonization in the Americas—and Asia and Africa as well—things had changed. People had changed, as there was less distinction between European colonizers and the local populations. Now there were Eurasians, Eurafricans, and Euramericans who all had closer ties to the colonized lands than to the European powers who controlled them. Local loyalty to the land where they lived would help propel movements and revolutions for national liberation and decolonial movements both during the nineteenth century and through the mid-twentieth century. Obstacles France already had a central government and system of administration that helped bring the center and outlying areas together. This state structure helped to build ideas of "the Nation." But that wasn't the case in many other countries. Sure, Germany and Italy each had common literary languages and the elites of these countries were developing ideas of a common destiny for all German or all Italian peoples. But neither place had a central government structure. They were both split up into a whole bunch of little states without any notion of German or Italian citizenship, no national armies, and their various royalty did not include a singular, that's-the-one-in-charge monarch in either place. Nationalists in places like Italy and Germany had to do a lot more than just talk up the benefits of nationhood to the population. They also had to propose a way that the nation could be expressed in a form of government. It wouldn't be until 1871 that these two regions would each become unified into nations. In Germany it would be through the military force of the Prussians and in Italy, through the political leadership of the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia in the northwest part of present-day Italy. The German Empire is proclaimed in 1871. Public domain. Conclusions and future differences Author bio Malcolm F. Purinton is a part-time lecturer of World History and the History of Modern Europe at Northeastern University and Emmanuel College in Boston, MA. He specializes in Food and Environmental History through the lens of beer and alcohol. [Sources and attributions]

Appraising Napoleon By Trevor R. Getz Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor of the French and conquered much of Europe. Did he end the French Revolution, or put its principles into action? The French Revolution ended on December 2, 1804. After this long struggle for democracy, a single man—Napoleon Bonaparte—crowned himself Emperor of the French. All the dreams of “liberty, equality, and brotherhood” that had begun the Revolution in 1789 had come to an end. Or had they? Was Napoleon just another European monarch, a tyrant who thought he ruled because God wanted him to? Or was he the man who would spread the ideals of democracy from France throughout Europe, bringing an enlightened age to the continent? These are the question we will explore in this article. The Coronation of Napoleon, by Jacques-Louis David. This painting, officially commissioned by Napoleon, shows him taking the crown himself and putting it on his empress. Meanwhile, he wears the golden laurel leaves of a Roman Emperor. What do you think these acts are meant to signify? Public domain. General Napoleon Napoleon Bonaparte was born into a mostly Italian family on the island of Corsica in 1769—twenty years before the French Revolution began. In that year, France took over Corsica, so Napoleon grew up under French rule. In fact, Napoleon’s family mainly opposed French rule of the island and as a young person this future French emperor was a Corsican nationalist. Nevertheless, he moved to France at the age of nine to study at a religious school and later a military school. There, he discovered that he was very skilled at the combination of mathematics and military sciences that a good artillery officer needed. So, at sixteen, he became a lieutenant in a French artillery regiment. He was still serving when the Revolution broke out four years later, in 1789. After the Revolution, France quickly came under an attack by many of the most powerful states in Europe, all of which hoped to contain or stop the spread of revolutionary ideas. Napoleon found himself commanding the artillery facing a British invasion force at the southern French city of Toulon. His brilliant plan to bombard the British forced their retreat. Because many of France’s generals had been killed or had left, Napoleon was rapidly promoted and became a general at the age of twenty-four. Napoleon’s troops putting down the Royalist counter-revolution, 1795. Public domain. When royalists (supporters of the king) declared a counter-revolution on October 3, 1795, Napoleon used artillery to repel the attackers. His victory over the royalists made him an immediate hero. He was sent to lead French forces in Italy, fighting the Austrian (Habsburg) Empire. There, he won a number of huge victories and by 1797 had invaded Austria itself. His troops looted huge amounts of wealth wherever they went, and sent much of it back to France. This made him even more popular. In 1798, he led an attack on Egypt, in North Africa. Although the campaign was successful, his troops were soon cut off by a British fleet and he returned to France. Consul Napoleon In 1799, Napoleon used his popularity to take power in France along with a few other leaders. They replaced a radical government—one that wanted dramatic and often violent change. Calling themselves “Consuls” of France, they took a somewhat more moderate path. Napoleon was the most powerful of them. As the new leader of France in all but name, he wrote a constitution that called for elections and voting but gave himself enormous power to make decisions almost entirely alone. Then, with this new power, he turned to battle again. In early 1800, his forces defeated a large Austrian army at the Battle of Marengo, in a very risky campaign. In 1801, the Austrians gave up, and peace descended on Europe for a while. This peace allowed Napoleon to return to France where he began to reorganize the government and laws. One of these changes was to re-authorize slavery, undoing one of the most dramatic acts of the Revolution. But Napoleon felt pretty secure in his popularity, so in 1804 he asked the people to vote to elect him Emperor of the French. Almost 4 million people voted, and he won the election, resulting in the coronation depicted in Jacques-Louis David’s colorful painting. Emperor Napoleon As Emperor, Napoleon went on to fight a series of wars. His victories over both the Austrian and Russian armies at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 were among his most important battles. However, he also suffered two great military defeats. The first was his inability to conquer and hold Spain, where guerilla fighters (indeed, this campaign is where the word guerilla comes from!) supported by British forces continually bled his troops and his money. The second was his decision to invade Russia in 1812 with an army of over 400,000. Despite not losing any battles, Napoleon could not win a decisive victory here. He eventually faced a lack of food and a terrible, freezing winter. He retreated having lost as many as 90 percent of his troops. One of the most famous infographics of all time, by Charles Minard. It shows the size of Napoleon’s army invading Russia in red, and their retreat in black. The shrinking width of the line shows the number of men he had with him at any time. This is a modern redrawing in English. By Dkegy, CC BY-SA. Defeated, Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba. The royal family of France was restored to the throne—but not for long. The new (old) monarchy proved unpopular, and in 1815 Napoleon escaped Elba and returned to power. He put together a huge army and immediately marched to war. His first big battle was at Waterloo, against the British Duke of Wellington and the Prussian Prince Blücher. He was defeated, however, and returned to exile, this time on the distant island of St. Helena, where he died. Liberator or Tyrant? At its peak, just before the invasion of Russia, Napoleon controlled most of Europe. He was Emperor of France, and had put his friends and relatives on the thrones of the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain. He had set up supportive, allied states in central Europe including the Helvetic Republic (today Switzerland), the Confederation of the Rhine (today much of Germany), and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw (today Poland). Britain was his constant opponent throughout this period, while Russia and the Austrian Empire went back and forth between them, and the Ottoman Empire mostly stayed out of the conflict. Europe in 1812, showing the extent of Napoleon’s empire. By Alexander Altenhof, CC BY-SA 3.0. For many in Europe, Napoleon was a hero—even a liberator. Many Poles celebrated him for expelling their Russian rulers and helping them to create their own country. Similarly, many in Italy believed he had freed them from Austrian rule. Everywhere he went, he brought some of the ideals of the French Revolution, especially through the legal system known as the Napoleonic Code. The Napoleonic Code was a set of laws that brought into effect many of the important ideas of the French Revolution. For example, it introduced the assumption that any suspect was innocent until proven guilty, and limited arrests without reason. It also said that there could be no secret laws, and that the same laws applied to everyone, no matter what their wealth or social class. Indeed, Napoleon believed that equality was a very important right. He introduced education reforms that would provide a quality education to any French citizen, and created a system of taxation that taxed everyone in the same way. He also supported freedom of religion. In some ways, this last idea was very much a legacy of a revolution that called for freedom of faith. By contrast, earlier revolutionaries had gone so far as to attack the Catholic Church for being the only powerful religion in the country. Napoleon actually healed that division, truly opening religious freedom for all. Yet at the same time, Napoleon undid many of the political rights of the French Revolution. Although he was actually elected—first as Consul and later as Emperor—he crowned himself Emperor, symbolically stating that nobody had any right to limit his power. He ruled very much as an autocrat, an individual making decisions without limits. He ruthlessly put down any dissent and sent spies around to figure out who might betray him. Additionally, Napoleon undid many of the freedoms that had been won through the French Revolution. You have already seen how he restored the status of slavery, which had been abolished prior to his rule. His Napoleonic Code also undid the few advances women had gained through the Revolution. It recognized the father as head of the household with total control over family property and authority over his wife and children. He established censorship over writing, undoing any freedom of the press. In the end, there is no real agreement about how we should view Napoleon. But most scholars recognize both the ways that he advanced people’s equality and standards of living and also restricted their rights. What do you think? Was Napoleon a liberator? Or a tyrant? Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How does the author define ethnicity?Why was ethnic nationalism such a threat to the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires?How did nationalist ideas spread to Greek communities?What was the dark side of ethnic nationalism? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Use the evidence from this article, and others you have read, to answer this question: Does nationalism liberate people, or does it oppress them? Or neither? Or both?Throughout this unit, we have seen people adopt new identities—from being British to being American, from being Ottoman subjects to being Greek citizens, etc. What does this flexibility suggest about the nature of our identities as members of communities? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Ethnic Nationalism Painting of a crowd of soldiers rushing across the landscape as a building burns in the background and one soldiers carries an Italian flag. By Trevor Getz Nationalism emerged as the aspiration of a people for a state. In the French Revolution, nationalists felt that the community as a whole should be represented in government. In many multi-ethnic empires, however, nationalism soon took a different form. Members of an ethnic group embraced nationalism as a movement for independence from the larger empire. Ethnic nationalism The emergence of the nation-state was one of the most fundamental transformations of the modern age. Nation-states are states (or legal countries) whose citizens believe themselves to be a nation (a united and sovereign people). There are many different kinds of nation-states in the world today. Some are religious and others are secular. Some large and others small. Some are very democratic and others much less so. These states replaced kingdoms, empires, and caliphates throughout the world over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They may not be the final political form we humans create. Perhaps we will end up with one world government. Perhaps territorial states themselves will disappear. But for now, the nation-state is the world's dominant political structure. Nationalism emerged as a tool for political change in the eighteenth century. In places like the Spanish colonies in the Americas, it was used by Creoles to overthrow the rule of overseas empires. In France, it acted to unite people of different social classes and identities to overthrow the monarchy. But in some parts of Europe, nationalism acted as a tool for different groups of people living in vast, multi-ethnic empires to fight for their independence as an "ethnicity." We call this kind of nationalism, "ethnic nationalism." It was particularly a feature of the mid-nineteenth century. Before we look at some specific examples, we must begin by saying that "ethnicity" is a fuzzy word. People believe they are members of an ethnicity or ethnic group by genetics or descent. They believe that they share a common ancestry. This may be true to some degree. But often ethnicities include people of quite wide backgrounds. Even more often, people of two different ethnicities share a great deal of ancestry. In reality, belonging to an ethnic group is more often a mix of ancestry with a shared language, culture, and heritage. Ethnicity is somewhat real and somewhat "imagined." People often don't even think of themselves as being members of an ethnic group until they face a shared threat. Or they begin to think of themselves as being members of an ethnic group when they see an opportunity to benefit from this association. Ethnic nationalism in the Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Empire, as we have already seen, was one of the most multi-ethnic states around in the nineteenth century. The Empire's core was a Turkish-speaking population. The Empire also included Greeks and Slavic communities such as Serbs, Armenians, and Azers in Central Europe, Arabs, and Kurds. The sultan's subjects included both Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic Christians, and Jews. Ottoman rule of these many distinct communities was often tolerant. But at the same time, the Ottomans held them out as separate and somewhat inferior. Through much of the late eighteenth century, these groups were among the people who wanted reform or changes in the way the Ottoman Empire functioned. But as ideas of nationalism spread along the trade routes from the Atlantic Ocean zone, they began to think more of themselves as distinct nations deserving their own state. One of the earliest major nationalist challenges to Ottoman rule occurred in Greece. It was at the southern tip of the Ottoman-ruled Balkan Peninsula. In the 1820s, Greece was facing something of an economic recession. Young Greek men travelled into central and western Europe looking for work. There, they encountered the new ideas about nationalism. On their return, they called for a Greece that could rule itself, instead of being under Ottoman rule. Soon they had idealistic liberals around Europe proclaiming them as potential liberators of the Greek people from oppressive Ottoman rule. But there was also a darker side to this new Greek ethnic nationalism. Greece was at the time quite multi-ethnic itself. It had Muslim, Jewish, and Orthodox Christian communities. But the young returning men began to argue for a "pure" form of Greek identity. They argued that Greeks had to embrace Orthodox Christianity and the Greek language. They even argued that Greeks should look a certain way—neither like Turks nor like northern Europeans. They attacked Ottoman administrative offices and military. But they also attacked mosques and even Jewish synagogues. By 1830, Greece had won its independence. Ottoman suppression was often quite forceful. But it was not a match for the mobilizing power of ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism also spread to other parts of the Ottoman Empire during this era. In particular, it spread to the Balkan Peninsula, but it was not generally successful until much later. Drawing of several people pointing toward a map of Greece’s navy and islands while holding the Greek flag.Celebration of the “New Greece” after independence. By Macedonian Heritage, public domain. Drawing of several people pointing toward a map of Greece’s navy and islands while holding the Greek flag. Celebration of the “New Greece” after independence. By Macedonian Heritage, public domain. Ethnic nationalism in the Habsburg Empire To the north of the Balkan Peninsula, much of central Europe was under the rule of the German Habsburg dynasty. This multi-ethnic empire included Germans in Austria and neighboring territories. It also included Italians, Ukrainians, Poles, Romanians, Croats, Serbs, Czechs, Hungarians, and others. The Habsburg Empire was involved in the Napoleonic Wars. Nationalism emerged among minority groups at that time. In 1848, there were uprisings across Europe. These uprisings were perhaps most important in stimulating ethnic nationalism. During these liberal revolutions, large groups of Hungarians declared their independence. At the least, they demanded self-rule. Meanwhile, the Czech city of Prague also rose in revolt against the empire. Both of these movements were ultimately unsuccessful. But they called for an end to empire partly through the language of ethnic nationalism. They also called for independent Hungarian and Czech nations. Ironically, this may have helped lead to their defeat. Minorities within Hungary, especially Germans and Croats, feared an independent Hungarian nation-state, and preferred to stay within the multi-ethnic Habsburg Empire instead. Map of the Habsburg Empire divided by majority ethnic group in each region in 1910.Ethnic map of the Habsburg Empire. ByAndrei nacu, public domain. Map of the Habsburg Empire divided by majority ethnic group in each region in 1910. Ethnic map of the Habsburg Empire. ByAndrei nacu, public domain. These revolts also helped fuel Italian and German nationalism. These movements eventually succeeded. They created independent states. At the time, both Germany and Italy were divided into many small principalities and territories. The Habsburgs controlled some of these in southern Germany and northern Italy. As a result, Italians and Germans who rose up in 1848 in these territories were partly fighting for independence against Habsburg rule. But the bigger fight was to try to unify their different small states into two big states. To do this, both the German and the Italian nationalists had to elevate their sense of themselves as "nations," or ethnicities. In reality, both states were multi-ethnic, just like most countries in the world. Italians spoke almost a dozen distinct dialects. Each dialect couldn't necessarily be understood by other Italians. Germans were also widely separated culturally. But nationalists in both communities began to try to create a sense of unity through newspapers, books, and symbols. Ironically, they eventually both decided to choose kings as symbols. In Germany, this was the prince of the state of Prussia, Wilhelm I, who was seen as a logical king of all Germany. In Italy, it was King Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia-Piedmont. The German and Italian nationalists each believed that these figures could help unite people in separate states into a sense of being a German or an Italian "nation." So, while the French Revolution dethroned a king, German and Italian nationalism created kings! In 1871, both Germany and Italy succeeded in becoming states. Both now had a compelling form of ethnic nationalism. It had helped to unify people in different small principalities into all believing they were members of the same "ethnicity" or nation. But there was a price. From the moment of unification, in Germany especially, there was suspicion of those who were perceived as being not fully culturally members of the German ethnicity. This excluded the Roma people, and the Jewish population. This attitude would come to have a deep impact in the future. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview – what do we have? This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what this chart is about and the information it contains. Pay attention to: Labels and titles. What is the title? How are the axes labeled? Is anything else on the chart labeled?Data representation. How many variables are there and what are they? What are the scales? What time period does the chart cover? Is the chart interactive?Data source. Where did the data for this chart come from? Do you trust it? Who created the chart? Second read: key ideas – what do we know? In this read, you will pay attention to the information that most helps you understand the chart and the information it is trying to convey. Pay attention to: Claim(s). What can you say about the data? What story does it tell? Can you make any claims about this data? Does it change when you zoom in compared to when you look at the data as a whole?Evidence. What data from the chart supports this story? Does this change if you change the scale or variables?Presentation. How does the way this chart is presented influence how you read it? Has the author selected certain variables or scales that change the conclusions that can be drawn? Is there anything missing from this chart? By the end of the second read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why is the chart linking violent crime and ice cream sales misleading?Where are the x-axis and y-axis located on the chart about student knowledge in WHP?What are variables?What is scale in charts?How is the “Average Annual Global Temperature in Fahrenheit” chart misleading?Are Nicolas Cage films drowning people in pools? Third read: making connections – what does this tell us? The third reading is really about why the chart is important and what it can tell us about the past and help us think about the future. Pay attention to: Significance. Why does this matter? Does this impact me, and if so, how? How does it connect what is going on in the world right now? How does it relate to what was happening at the time it was created?Back to the future. How does this data compare to today? Based on what you now know, what are your thoughts on this phenomenon 25 years, 50 years, and 100 years from now? At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Can you think of any examples you’ve seen of someone using data or charts to present misleading information? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. A Guide to Reading Charts By Marissa Major Learning to read and evaluate charts is an important skill. This guide will be a useful reference as you encounter different charts in this course. Lies and ice cream There’s an old saying in the English language: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” People have a lot of trust in numbers, but numbers lie. Or, rather, people use numbers to lie. They use charts to tell stories that support their point of view. For example, look at the chart below. This chart makes it seem like eating ice cream causes violent crime. But whoever made this chart left out something important: weather. When it’s sunny and hot, people eat more ice cream. When the nights get warmer, people stay out later and commit more crimes. You’ll see a lot of charts in your life, and a lot of them are going to be misleading, like this one. It’s important to learn the difference between the good use of information, and the use of information to support a faulty assertion. You don’t want to give up ice cream, do you? This article will guide you through the tools you’ll need to start reading and evaluating charts. The basics You’re going to encounter a lot of different charts and data in this course, and some of it will be really complex. Let’s start simple: What’s a chart? A chart is a way to show data visually. Data refers to pieces of information collected together, often statistics or facts. Charts use data to illustrate two things: change over time and how two or more “things” are related to each other. We call these “things” variables. That might be a little confusing. Let’s look at an example: This is a line graph. It shows how student knowledge changes as WHP students progress through the seven eras or units of the course. How do you start reading a chart, like this one? First, look for a title and any captions that might provide clues. Second, identify what the chart is measuring by looking at the x-axis and y-axis (labeled in this chart). In this chart, the blue line represents the relationship between time (x-axis) and student knowledge (y-axis). The relationship between these two things is measured by a blue line. So what argument is this chart making? It’s arguing that as students move through the course, they gain more knowledge. Do you agree? Do you trust this chart? Where do you think the data came from? (Hint: we totally made it up.) Variables and scale The most important part of reading a chart is identifying the variables. Variables are the information in the chart that can change, depending on where you’re looking. Take a look at the line graph on the next page. In this chart, titled “Life Expectancy, 1543 to 2015,” there are three variables: life expectancy (y-axis), years (x-axis), and country (the line labeled “United Kingdom”). If you move from left to right in the chart, the year increases, and if you move from bottom to top, the life expectancy increases. The jagged line shows the relationship between life expectancy and dates. More specifically, this line represents changes in life expectancy in the United Kingdom over 500 years. If you view this chart online, you’ll see that it’s an interactive chart. So, if you click on the link above, you can add more countries and regions as variables on this chart. We talk about scale a lot in WHP. Scale is also an important part of charts. In charts, scale just means the range of numbers on either axis. For example, the dates in this chart are provided in years ranging from 1543 to 2015. Changing the scale of a chart can transform its meaning. If you click the link above, you can change the scale of this chart by sliding the range of the blue line left or right. How does this chart look different if you switch scales to a 25-year period from 1703 to 1728? You’re going to read a lot of different charts in this course, but you should always begin by identifying titles, variables, and scale. Once you have those identified, you can start to dig into the details. Points on the graph The line in the graph on the previous page shows how life expectancy changed in the United Kingdom, but how do I find what life expectancy was in a specific year? Easy! Just look at the illustration below. If I’m interested in the year 1700, I just find that value on the x-axis and follow it straight up (green dotted line) until I hit the line representing the United Kingdom. Looking at that point, I see how high up on the y-axis it lands. In this case it lands at 39 years. So, in the year 1700, the life expectancy in the United Kingdom was 39 years. (Yikes!) Evaluating charts and data Often, what’s missing from the data is just as important as what’s included. The graph above consists of points connected by a line. The points represent the years when data was collected, and there are fewer points in the first couple of centuries. What was happening in those years where no data was collected? Was that steep drop around 1550 because of a war or famine? Or was the data collected only from certain regions, where people tended to die younger? Without answers to these questions, we’re missing parts of the story. Very few societies kept detailed records before the nineteenth century, so when you see charts that go back hundreds or thousands of years, you should always ask yourself where that data came from. Even when looking at very recent data, it’s important to ask this question. Bubble charts Let’s examine two other types of charts that you’ll encounter in the course: bubble charts and maps. The bubble chart below also displays data on life expectancy, but it uses bubbles instead of lines. This enables the chart to include more variables. Each bubble represents a country. The bigger the bubble, the larger the country’s population. In this image, the chart is paused in the year 2019, but there’s a “play” button at the bottom that allows you to move through the years from 1800 to 2019. So, if you’re looking at the chart online, when you press play, the chart changes each year as the bubbles bounce up and down and slowly move toward the upper right corner as life expectancy and national incomes increase. Click the link above and experiment with this interactive chart. In addition to changing the year, you can add or remove countries and regions. You can even change the variable that’s represented by the size of the bubbles. Have some regions improved life expectancy more than others? Which countries have seen the biggest improvements in the last two centuries? In total, this chart has six variables: life expectancy (y-axis), income (x-axis), country (bubbles), population (bubble size), year, and geographic region (bubble color). Map charts Now, let’s take a look at a kind of chart that doesn’t really look like a chart at all: maps. Map charts are weird charts. They don’t have axes. But the principles of reading them are the same: Begin by identifying titles, variables, and scale. In the chart below, we have three variables: CO2 emissions per capita (represented by color), country, and year. There’s a play button and slider on the bottom that lets you adjust the year from 1800 to 2017. Click on the link above to explore this chart. What are some conclusions you can draw by watching the chart change from 1800 to 2017? What parts of the world turn red and when do they do so? You can click on individual countries to display the data as a line graph for that country. The main takeaway from this map is that global CO2 emissions have risen since 1800, but those changes differ depending on region. What part of the world produces the most emissions? Lies and the lying charts that tell them Let’s conclude with some examples of how charts can be misleading. Remember, we started with a chart that seemed to argue that eating ice cream causes crime. But really, warmer weather is to blame for both. In that example, it was a missing variable (weather) that caused the confusion. In the charts below, you’re going to see an example of how scale can change our understanding of charts. This chart is a line graph. It shows how the global average temperature has changed over time. There are two variables here: year and global temperature. Reading this chart might lead you to think that the average global temperature has stayed about the same for the last 150 years. It makes it look like climate change isn’t happening. But look at that scale on the y-axis! Those are some big numbers. Yet, climate scientists claim that an increase of only 1 degree on the global average can have catastrophic impacts on weather, sea levels, and ecosystems. The temperature scale on the chart above is so large that we can’t really see a change of 1 degree. Check out this chart on the next page, which displays almost the same information at a different scale. The only real difference between these two charts is the scale used on the y-axis. However, the second chart uses a scale that is more appropriate to the situation and provides a more accurate picture of the danger posed by climate change. This is just one example of how charts can be used to mislead the viewer. Let’s look at another. In the chart above, the black line represents the number of films Nicholas Cage appears in each year while the red line represents the number of drownings in swimming pools each year. Notice that as one line goes up or down, so does the other (roughly). Two bogus conclusions can be drawn here: Either Nicholas Cage films cause people to drown in pools, or people drowning in pools cause Nicholas Cage to make more films. Either way, it seems that Nicholas Cage should stop acting! But, as much as you may agree with that statement, there is no actual proof here that one thing causes the other. It is probably a complete coincidence that they have fluctuated together over this 10-year span. Beware scales without zero Let’s look at a final example, which comes from callingbullshit.org. The first graph on the next page seems to suggest that people in the Canadian province of Quebec are much more suspicious than people from the rest of Canada. But compare the chart above with the one below. They represent the same data. Yet in the first one, the disparity in trust between Quebec and the rest of Canada is much more pronounced. The only difference between these two charts is their scale on the y-axis. The y-axis in the top chart starts between 35 and 50, while in the bottom chart it starts at 0. The top chart is misleading because it exaggerates the differences by not starting at 0. With charts misusing scale in this way, it’s no surprise that Quebec is less trusting! These are just a few examples of why learning to read and evaluate charts is important. They can be used or misused to support arguments on topics as serious as climate change or as trivial as ice cream consumption. As you move through the many different charts you’ll encounter in this course, you should refer back to this article as a guide. The future of the planet and mint chocolate chip might depend on it! Author bio Marissa Major holds a master’s degree in pure mathematics from Portland State University and has taught all levels of undergraduate mathematics for the past five years. Her current goal, using writing, research, and curriculum development, is to promote mathematical thinking as a tool to gain more knowledge about the world and improve the lives of those in it. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Fill out the Skimming for Gist section of the Three Close Reads Worksheet as you complete your first close read. As a reminder, this should be a quick process! Second read: key ideas and understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What was the Stamp Act and how did British North American colonists react to it?How did the lives of French people in the lower and middle classes change during the eighteenth century? How did these changes affect their attitudes about the government?What was unique about Haiti’s independence?What were the causes of the Latin American revolutions, according to the author Third read: evaluating and corroborating At the end of the third close read, respond to the following questions: How does evidence from this article help you support, extend, or challenge the communities frame narrative?Revolutionary movements had many different causes, as you learned in this article. In your view, based on this article and other material in this lesson, make and defend a claim in response to the following questions: Do you think Enlightenment ideals or economic factors played a bigger role in sparking revolutions? Do you think the answer is the same everywhere, or does this vary by region? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Ingredients for Revolution Painting of a large group of people, mostly female, standing in a large group in protest. One woman is beating a drum and many women have raised swords. By Malcolm F. Purinton *Between 1775 and 1825 several revolutions occurred around the Atlantic Ocean, all influenced by Enlightenment ideas. In addition, there were economic problems that nearly bankrupted several governments, which also helped spark revolutions. Radical ideas Several political revolutions during the early part of the long nineteenth century changed the Atlantic world and had radical effects on the rest of the world—effects that continue to be felt today. The American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, and revolutions of Latin America were all between 1775 and 1825. Why did these monumental shifts in power occur in such a short period of time? What influenced people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, and in both North and South America, to all rise up against their rulers within a few short decades? Enlightened changes To some, these revolutionary changes were no surprise. Voltaire, the French writer and philosopher, wrote this to a friend in 1722: "My dear philosopher, doesn't this appear to you to be the century of revolutions?" He wrote this in the midst of the Enlightenment when ideas about the world, and humanity's place in it, were changing. The causes of these revolutions were connected through new intellectual and political ideas, as well as economic issues. Why all these sudden important connections? In the end it had to be the many global exchanges of ideas and knowledge that went on between the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century. A collection of four painted images of various battle scenes. In one, a man sits atop an elephant, in another, men hold up a partially destroyed flag in a smoky scene.Seven Years' War Collage showing several battle scenes in India and Europe. By Blaue Max, CC BY-SA 4.0. A collection of four painted images of various battle scenes. In one, a man sits atop an elephant, in another, men hold up a partially destroyed flag in a smoky scene. Seven Years' War Collage showing several battle scenes in India and Europe. By Blaue Max, CC BY-SA 4.0. Enlightenment ideals1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript of freedom and equality strongly influenced the revolutionary age as they challenged the old order of life. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the old regimes of Europe continued to rule but a lot would change over the next 150 years. The idea of liberty, including the suggestion that individual humans had rights, sounded outrageously strange to most people. Before the revolutionary period, many monarchs thought they needed to control what people wrote and believed. But that got a lot harder as the century wore on and people began calling for individual liberties. The freedom to worship as they wanted, the end of censorship, and having a say in their own laws were all on the agenda. All of these ideas were supported by the growing belief that societies are not fixed by tradition or religion, but that they can be improved by human action guided by reason. As "reason"-able as that may sound in many parts of today's world, these beliefs were truly radical at the time. Follow the money But it wasn't all about the big new ideas. Changing systems of production and distribution were also among the causes of these political revolutions. For example, several wars were fought in the years before these revolutions that would have long-term effects. In the Seven Years’ War from 1756 to 1763, France and Austria fought against England and Prussia on several fronts. Battles raged across central Europe, North America (where it was known as the French and Indian War), and even India. England and Prussia won. France lost all its territory east of the Mississippi River in North America, all of its holdings in India, and was very humiliated from losing. One thing the winners and losers now had in common—major debt! How were they going to pay back all the money for war? Taxes. Another collection of battle scenes. Men march in a line, war ships come toward the shore, and men have fallen in an explosion. Battle scenes from the American War of Independence. Public domain. Another collection of battle scenes. Men march in a line, war ships come toward the shore, and men have fallen in an explosion. Battle scenes from the American War of Independence. Public domain. The North American English colonies had been pretty autonomous from England. They had been making their own local laws and taxes in each of the thirteen colonies. England allowed this because they didn't really see them as all that important—the real money came from sugar plantations in the Caribbean, using the labor of enslaved people. Most settlers in the North American colonies were generally happy with being part of the British Empire— they had access to British markets, protection in wartime, and still considered themselves "English." However, after the expensive Seven Years’ War, the British government decided to pay off their debt by taxing the colonies directly and putting tariffs on the colonial goods. The British also announced that they would base a large army in North America—without colonial consent. The colonists, who were rather proud of their autonomy and economic achievement, pushed back. The Stamp Act of 1765—the first of several attempts to tax the North American colonies—invited protests, rioting, and boycotts against the British. It was eventually repealed, but the damage was done. Opinion in the colonies had shifted, and the British were now the enemy. The end of an old regime The American Revolution was won partly with French support. Even though France had little money after the Seven Years War it still wanted revenge against the British. From the beginning France supplied guns and gunpowder for the colonial fight against England. By 1777 thousands of French volunteers—including the Marquis de Lafayette—had arrived in Virginia to support the fighting colonists. Without such strong military and monetary support from France the American Revolution may not have ended the same way. But even though France got its revenge against the English, it nearly bankrupted their own country. Which brings us to… the French Revolution! A painted battle scene shows a great billow of smoke in the sky. Many soldiers lay dead or wounded and a few men continue to fight with swords in the foreground.The storming the Tuileries Palace in Paris in 1792 during the French Revolution. By Jean Duplessis-Bertaux, public domain. A painted battle scene shows a great billow of smoke in the sky. Many soldiers lay dead or wounded and a few men continue to fight with swords in the foreground. The storming the Tuileries Palace in Paris in 1792 during the French Revolution. By Jean Duplessis-Bertaux, public domain. Just as the British had tried to pay off its debts by taxing the American colonists, the French monarchy tried to avoid bankruptcy by taxing its people—with drastic results. A lot was changing during the eighteenth century. The growing population led to the growth of cities and towns. That caused inflation, making the goods and food that people needed much more expensive. The poor had to work harder and longer to survive as rents and costs continued to rise. The middle class—also part of the "third estate"—was made up of merchants and educated professionals who were seeped in Enlightenment ideas of individual rights and the freedom to create their own laws. The "third estate" didn't have the economic privileges that nobles and the Church had, and they wanted a new economic and political system. They got their chance in 1789 when the King of France called the Estates General—a large meeting so that he could change laws and impose new taxes. When things didn't go as planned, the representatives of the middle class and some supporters among the nobility organized themselves into the National Assembly, and thus began the French Revolution. Another American revolution Across the Atlantic Ocean in the Caribbean Sea, the people of the French colony of Saint Domingue—now known as Haiti—were watching the French Revolution closely. The American Revolution had been about retaining autonomy and having local control politically and economically. The French Revolution had started out of social differences. The Haitian Revolution was about all of that and more. There, what you fought for depended on who you were in the colony. If you were a rich white landowner, you probably fought for greater autonomy from the French government. If you were a poor white man you battled for citizenship equality. If you were a merchant, your crusade was against economic restrictions. And if you were among the almost 500,000 enslaved laborers in this colony, you fought for the two things you didn't have: freedom and a paycheck. A drawing of a battle scene, taking place in a jungle-like wilderness. Depiction of the Battle of Ravine-à-Couleuvres (23 February 1802), during the Haitian Revolution. Public domain. A drawing of a battle scene, taking place in a jungle-like wilderness. Depiction of the Battle of Ravine-à-Couleuvres (23 February 1802), during the Haitian Revolution. Public domain. The Haitian Revolution began with revolts in 1791 that left a thousand plantations burned and hundreds of people killed. Over the next decade the enslaved population, led by Toussaint Louverture, gained their freedom and declared independence on January 1, 1804. It was the second independent republic in the Americas after the United States. But it was the first Western colony where a majority population of enslaved people fought for independence and won, and the first independent nation-state ruled by people of African descent. Revolutions in Latin America Economics played an important role in the Latin American revolutions between 1810 and 1825. As in other Atlantic regions, social tensions between classes grew out of a familiar set of problems. These included high taxation, the financing of foreign wars, and questioning the legitimacy of European monarchs so far away. Leaders in Latin American colonies were also heavily influenced by the same Enlightenment ideals that helped motivate the three revolutions we already discussed. The nationalist leaders in this region included Simon Bolivar and José de San Martin. With promises of liberty and individual freedoms similar to those of the French Revolution, they led revolts that pushed the Spanish out of Latin America. Revolutionary roots Each of these revolutions had their own leaders and specific local challenges. But they were not isolated in their ideas or causes. Bolivar often visited the newly independent Haiti as he fought the Spanish in South America. Thomas Jefferson, of the recently independent United States of America, was in Paris as the French Revolution began, offering support and advice to the revolutionaries there. Each of these revolutions was influenced by the ideas of progress, liberty, and equality coming out of the Enlightenment. Revolutionaries fought for new forms of government and independence. And of course people desired better economic and labor conditions than they were getting in this increasingly production-driven world. In the end the economic, political, and intellectual causes of revolution all played important parts in this revolutionary era. Portrait of a man in uniform. He has dark hair and is looking directly at the artist.Portrait of the South American revolutionary Simón Bolívar, 1812. Public domain. Portrait of a man in uniform. He has dark hair and is looking directly at the artist. Portrait of the South American revolutionary Simón Bolívar, 1812. Public domain. [Notes] Author bio Malcolm F. Purinton is a part-time lecturer of World History and the History of Modern Europe at Northeastern University and Emmanuel College in Boston, MA. He specializes in Food and Environmental History through the lens of beer and alcohol. [Sources and attributions]

The data exploration article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview – what do we have? This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what this chart is about and the information it contains. Pay attention to: Labels and titles. What is the title? How are the axes labeled? Is anything else on the chart labeled?Data representation. How many variables are there and what are they? What are the scales? What time period does the chart cover? Is the chart interactive?Data source. Where did the data for this chart come from? Do you trust it? Who created the chart? Second read: key ideas – what do we know? In this read, you will pay attention to the information that most helps you understand the chart and the information it is trying to convey. Pay attention to: Claim(s). What can you say about the data? What story does it tell? Can you make any claims about this data? Does it change when you zoom in compared to when you look at the data as a whole?Evidence. What data from the chart supports this story? Does this change if you change the scale or variables?Presentation. How does the way this chart is presented influence how you read it? Has the author selected certain variables or scales that change the conclusions that can be drawn? Is there anything missing from this chart? By the end of the second read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How has the global human population changed in the last 12,000 years?In what 50-year period did the human population increase most dramatically?Has the global human population ever shrunk? When? What events might have caused this?What argument is this chart is making? How did the creator of this chart want you to feel after seeing it?What dates do we seem to have the best data for? Do you think you can trust the population data used in this chart? Why or why not? Third read: making connections – what does this tell us? The third reading is really about why the chart is important and what it can tell us about the past and help us think about the future. Pay attention to: Significance. Why does this matter? Does this impact me, and if so, how? How does it connect what is going on in the world right now? How does it relate to what was happening at the time it was created?Back to the future. How does this data compare to today? Based on what you now know, what are your thoughts on this phenomenon 25 years, 50 years, and 100 years from now? At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Why does this chart matter? What do global changes in population tell us about changes in human societies? How has population growth affected the way we organize ourselves, communicate with each other, and make and use goods?Using this chart, make one prediction about how the global human population will change in your lifetime. What evidence from the chart supports your prediction? Is there any evidence that challenges it? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Population Data Introduction By Max Rose, adapted by Mike Papritz and Trevor R. Getz There are a lot of humans living on the planet today. But for most of our history, our population was much smaller. Demography provides one window into our shared history. Demography data World history courses require you to test claims made through historical narratives that have a global geographic scope and cover long periods of time. In most cases, the evidence you will use to test these claims covers shorter periods of time and smaller regions of the world. Most of that evidence comes in the form of written text or videos. Some of it is quantitative, which means that it comes in the form of numbers that count people and things. That data is then represented in maps, charts, and tables. Those representations make it easier to understand the data, but you will also get to work with the numbers themselves, if you choose to. One of the most important types of data for this course is demographic. That is the data we begin the course with, and it is also the data with which we will end the course. Demography is an interesting word. It’s made up of two parts that give it meaning. It ends with the suffix -graphy, which appears in many other words, such as geography, cartography, photography, and biography. So, what does the suffix -graphy mean? In short, -graphy means the “study of” something. So, what is demography the “study of”? The word begins with the prefix demo-. This prefix comes from the Greek language and refers to people or population. If we combine the two parts of the word, we see that demography is the “study of populations.” Through your work in this course, you will come across historical demography information or population scenarios that you’ll investigate in order help you understand modern population statistics of today. Human demography in the long term Demography is an important element in understanding the past and the present. It is also crucial in trying to anticipate the future. Demographers study changes in birth and death rates, incidence of disease, life expectancy, and where people live. Over time, of course, the human population has grown dramatically. That’s the biggest demographic trend of them all. From about 250,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago, there were important shifts in demographics. At the beginning of this time period, there were few people on the Earth and their main activities for survival were hunting and gathering. They were nomads. By 5,000 years ago, migration to new regions and the Agricultural Revolution had sparked the rise in human population we see continuing today. From its modest beginning, human population has today grown to about 7 billion people living just about everywhere on the Earth. In many ways, world history is the story of this growth. Now, you might think that population grows steadily, century after century, and across all the regions of the globe. However, historical demographers have shown in their studies that this has not been the case. The chart below shows the increasing number of people living on our planet over the last 12,000 years. A mind-boggling change: The world population today is 1,860 times the size of what it was 12 millennia ago when the world population was around 4 million—half of the current population of London. The size of the world population over the last 12,000 years. Explore an interactive version of this chart here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-since-10000-bce-ourworldindata-series By Our World in Data, CC BY 4.0. What is most striking about this chart is that almost all of this growth happened just very recently. For a long period—from the appearance of modern Homo sapiens up to the starting point of this chart in 10,000 BCE—it is estimated that the total world population was often well under 1 million. Historical demographers estimate that around the year 1800, the world population was only around 1 billion people. This implies that on average the population grew very slowly from 10,000 BCE to 1700 (by 0.04 percent annually). After 1800, however, this slow growth fundamentally changed. From around 1 billion people in the year 1800, the global population has increased 7 times since then. We are now over 7 billion humans. Around 108 billion people have ever lived on our planet. Some demographers estimate that today’s population size makes up 6.5 percent of the total number of people ever born. What are the big patterns driving the history of human global population? What happens when we look at this interpretation of the data—and the data itself—more closely? Author bio Max is the founder and director of Our World in Data. He began the project in 2011 and for several years was the sole author, until receiving funding for the formation of a team. Max’s research focuses on poverty, global health, and the distribution of incomes. He is also Programme Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford, and Co-executive Director of Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization that publishes and maintains the website and the data tools that make OWID’s work possible. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What caused the revolutions of 1848 in Europe?Why did the revolutions of 1848 fail?What effects did the Taiping Revolution and the Great Revolt of 1857 have on British power in Asia?Why does the author suggest that all these revolutions happened around the same time?From Europe to China, what was the common effect of the failed world revolutions from 1848 to 1865? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: All the revolutions mentioned in this article failed. However, thinking back to your discussions from the last lesson, how revolutionary would the revolutions of 1848, the Taiping Revolution, and the Indian Rebellion of 1857 have been, if they had succeeded?The 1848 revolutions were driven by two questions: a communities frame question that mostly the middle class liberals pushed (who gets to participate in ruling?) and a production and distribution frame question that mostly working class radicals pushed (who gets the profit from industrialization?) Were either of these questions resolved by these revolutions? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The World Revolution of 1848 Painting of people marching across a countryside carrying different countries’ flags, with crowns littered on the ground and a group of angels circling above with Jesus at the center, floating below the word “Fraternite”. By Bennett Sherry In the middle of the nineteenth century, dozens of conflicts erupted across a world that had been connected by colonialism and industrialization. Coincidence? Not so much. The flood: World revolution and world crisis You've read about how the revolutions in the Atlantic World changed ideas about sovereignty and the nation-state. The next unit shows how the Industrial Revolution connected a global market. These transformations in ideology and industry were not simply European phenomena. They were felt across the world, and revolutions erupted as people responded to change. In the nineteenth century, the expansion of European empires brought more of the world into a single economic system and under the political system of European colonialism. The sociologist, Immanuel Wallerstein, has argued that the year 1848 marks the beginning of a "world revolution." Other scholars, like the historian C.A. Bayly, call it the "world crisis of the mid-nineteenth century." Whatever you call it, something big started in 1848. Anthropologist David Graeber notes that 1848 "saw revolutions break out almost simultaneously in fifty countries, from Wallachia to Brazil." But the crises went beyond 1848, and beyond Europe. Historians Michael Geyer and Charles Bright call the years 1840-1880 "a period of extraordinary violence," with 177 different conflicts. Let's look at the years from 1848 to 1857. That's when dozens of revolutions in Europe reshaped politics and ended European serfdom. A civil war in China would be history's deadliest ever, and there was a military revolt against British rule in India. Why was the mid-nineteenth century so deadly, and how were these distant events connected? To the barricades! You've read about two different ways to explain revolution: ideology and economics. Like the Atlantic revolutions, the world revolution of 1848 had economic and political causes. The European revolutions in 1848 started with bad luck, in the form of bad harvests. A group of revolutionaries hide behind and work to protect their makeshift barricades against French soldiers in uniform.Revolutionaries man the barricades in Paris. By Horace Vernet, public domain. A group of revolutionaries hide behind and work to protect their makeshift barricades against French soldiers in uniform. Revolutionaries man the barricades in Paris. By Horace Vernet, public domain. In 1845, a fungus devastated European potato crops. Millions starved. Poor wheat and rye harvests in 1846 made matters worse. Food shortages reignited political demands for democracy. These middle-class demands for political liberalism were joined by new calls for economic justice from factory workers. Both these groups were animated by a rising force: nationalism. In France, food shortages and industrialization united a diverse coalition against the king. In February 1848, revolts broke out across France. Merchants, middle-class liberals, and factory workers stood next to each another atop barricades in the streets, forcing the king to step down. The revolutionaries drafted a constitution that freed all enslaved people in France's colonies and extended the right to vote to all men. But here's the problem with diverse coalitions: they're diverse. The middle classes wanted political change—like the right to be represented in government. The working classes wanted economic change—such as reliable jobs, food and housing. When and if the government granted rights to the middle classes, middle-class liberals often abandoned their working-class allies. Working-class revolutionaries called for republican governments and socialism—proposals that the middle class found too radical. Portrait of a man wearing formal dress and a long thick cape, holding a scepter, and standing next to a elegant red and gold crown.Napoleon III. By Franz Xaver Winterhalter, public domain. Portrait of a man wearing formal dress and a long thick cape, holding a scepter, and standing next to a elegant red and gold crown. Napoleon III. By Franz Xaver Winterhalter, public domain. In France, disagreements between socialists, middle-class liberals, and peasants meant that monarchists and conservatives were able to win elections. After violent protests in June led to government suppression and 10,000 deaths, an election was held. Louis Napoleon promised the middle classes law and order and some political rights, but nothing for the workers. He was elected president in December 1848, thanks to middle class votes. But in the end, he betrayed even them. By 1852, he dissolved the National Assembly, seized power, and declared himself Emperor Napoleon III. What happened in France happened all over Europe. Dreams of democracy and nationalism had people shouting for new nations. Nationalist fervor inspired Hungarians, Germans, and others to demand their own nation-states. In the Austrian Empire and in Germany, revolutions broke out against the status quo. These movements forced rulers to agree to some changes, such as the end of serfdom in the Austrian Empire. But in each case, divisions between middle-class liberals and radial workers weakened the revolutions. Elites and monarchs exploited these divisions to reassert authority. In each case, the nation-states of Europe emerged more powerful and centralized, although the middle classes gained some limited political rights. With the liberal middle classes supporting the government, a kind of order had been restored. The powerful states of western Europe went on to cement their power for the next century. They did this in part by uniting nationalism and industrial technology to spread European colonies across Africa and Asia. Painting of people standing along and hiding behind barricades and wielding a tattered German flag as fighting continues in the square.German revolutions in Berlin, 1848. Public domain. Painting of people standing along and hiding behind barricades and wielding a tattered German flag as fighting continues in the square. German revolutions in Berlin, 1848. Public domain. The Taiping Revolution and the great revolt of 1857 Revolution was not limited to Europe. After 1848, similar conflicts erupted around the world. Two events shaped the mid-century crisis in Asia. The Taiping Rebellion in China and the 1857 Indian Uprising were global events. Asian conflicts during this period, especially in China and India, were responding in part to the expansion of European colonialism and the new political, religious, and economic forces that came with it. But were these rebellions connected to events in Europe, or were they something different? The Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864), led by Hong Xiuquan against the Qing dynasty, killed 20 million people. This was a period of economic turmoil for China. Peasants suffered under a failing Qing government, while much of China's wealth was drained by the international opium trade run by the British. After meeting European missionaries, Hong Xiuquan started a rebellion that combined elements of Christian and Buddhist religion. He promised to end the opium trade and create a better life for peasants, many of whom quickly followed him. By 1853, the rebels declared the city of Nanjing the capital of the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace. Ten years later, one of history's bloodiest wars ended with the Qing emperor suppressing the rebellion. The emperor's power was weakened, though, which opened the door to more European intervention. Painting of a landscape with a walled city on fire and bodies floating in a nearby river while battle ships arrive on the city’s shore.A scene from the Taiping Rebellion. By Wu Youru, public domain. Painting of a landscape with a walled city on fire and bodies floating in a nearby river while battle ships arrive on the city’s shore. A scene from the Taiping Rebellion. By Wu Youru, public domain. In the same era, the British East India Company (EIC), which ruled most of India in 1857, overtaxed the population and disrespected local customs. Most of the EIC's soldiers were Indian. The EIC employed 232,000 Indian soldiers, while only 45,000 were British. The company treated them poorly, and in 1857, Indian soldiers rose up against the British in northern India. The conflict was brutal, and the British had to use Indian soldiers from other regions to recapture lost territory. After the revolt, British control of India tightened. The last Mughal emperor was exiled, and the rule of the EIC in India came to an end, replaced by direct rule from the British government in London. Both the Taiping Rebellion and the 1857 Indian Uprising were responses to European colonialism and to the spread of ideologies. In China, the empire was recovering from defeat in the First Opium War in 1842, forcing the emperor to open Chinese ports to free trade and give Hong Kong to the British. In India, 150 years of British control became too much to bear. Some scholars call the Taiping Rebellion a nationalist uprising and say the 1857 uprising started the Indian national independence movement. But are they correct? Drawing of a line of uniformed men forcing revolutionaries towards a cannon.The EIC punished many revolutionaries by tying them to the barrels of cannons. By Illustrated Times, public domain. Drawing of a line of uniformed men forcing revolutionaries towards a cannon. The EIC punished many revolutionaries by tying them to the barrels of cannons. By Illustrated Times, public domain. Ripples and countercurrents Some of the same ideas of sovereignty and nationalism that motivated the 1848 revolutionaries also inspired colonial subjects. Like the working poor and liberal middle classes of Europe, these Asian revolutionaries were reacting to being ruled, poorly, by distant rulers and to economic suffering. And European ideas and events did have an impact in India and China, whose ports and cities were closely linked to Europe! But at the same time, these two events were really inspired and led by local religious and philosophical ideas and leaders, rather than European-style liberalism or nationalism. If the revolutions of 1848, the Taiping Rebellion in China, and the 1857 Indian Uprising all share one thing in common, it is this: they failed. In Europe, monarchs survived the revolutions and shared power with liberal nationalists for a century. The Qing Dynasty, though weakened, survived until the twentieth century. British rule in India only ended after World War II. Each of these uprisings ended with European ruling elites in a stronger position of power with a stronger centralized nation-state. Yet the revolutions of 1848 had an international impact. In particular, radical Germans, Italians, and Poles all joined each other on the barricades in solidarity. The monarchs of Europe helped each other avoid disaster. The Russian tsar intervened to save the Austrian emperor from losing Hungary. When revolutions failed, many European radicals emigrated to America. Hundreds of thousands of German immigrants fought in the Union army during the American Civil War. Other struggles rippled across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East after 1865. Between the 1840s and 1870s, the Ottoman Empire was forced to attempt reforms to meet the needs of its own middle class. In West Africa, the American colony of Liberia declared its independence in 1847. A little further along the African coast, middle class merchants tried to create "liberal"-style democratic nations of their own. The Fante Confederation of 1868-1871 (in today's Ghana) was one of these movements. But like others in the region, it was shut down by existing rulers and British intervention. The limits of revolution had been reached, at least for a while. Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Describe Germany before 1800. How were political communities organized?What does Snow White have to do with German nationalism?What role does the author say violence played in creating the German state?Why did Bismarck succeed against internal and external opposition? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Bismarck seems to be the stereotypical ‘big man’ who creates historical change through his will and his actions. But historians have criticized ‘big man’ history, arguing that wider forces are more important than individuals in creating historical change. Given the evidence you have read so far, do you think nationalism was more a result of the actions of a few big men, or more the result of wider historical forces? Is Bismarck an exception?Many of the political revolutions you encountered in previous lessons and the nationalist movements you’ve encountered in this lesson have ended up being controlled by men, despite the role many women played in these revolutions. Why do you think this is, and why do you think the role of women in these movements is often minimized after independence or unification is achieved? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Bismarck and German Nationalism Painting of a grand hall with a crowd gathered and a man wearing red standing on a raised platform with a paper in hand and a crown before him. By Bennett Sherry In the 1800’s, nationalism enflamed passions all across Europe. The German-speaking kingdom of Prussia and its minister, Otto von Bismarck, used these passions to build a German nation-state. Too many Germanies What do Snow White, militarism, and juggling all have in common? You'll know by the end of this article. We'll examine the German nationalism that is as legendary as Snow White. We'll explore how the advanced militarism of one German-speaking kingdom built a unified German nation-state. And we'll look at the career of the power-hungry politician whose juggling of his opponents' agendas made him a masterful diplomat—and made Germany happen. For almost a thousand years, the place we now call Germany sat at the heart of a multi-ethnic political mess known as the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). For most of its history, this HRE wasn't much of an empire. It was a collection of hundreds of smaller states. Various communities, such as principalities, bishoprics, duchies, city-states, and kingdoms formed a patchwork from Italy to Denmark. It was ruled loosely by an emperor who was elected by a council of aristocrats. Map of the Holy Roman Empire, which resided in modern-day Germany, Netherlands, and Belgium at the time, with all its divisions of control and authority shown in different colors.Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1789. By Robert Alfers, CC BY-SA 3.0. Map of the Holy Roman Empire, which resided in modern-day Germany, Netherlands, and Belgium at the time, with all its divisions of control and authority shown in different colors. Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1789. By Robert Alfers, CC BY-SA 3.0. By comparison, countries like England and France were much simpler. Each was a sizable nation-state with a centralized government. Many people at the time wished that the HRE could be more like those nations. U.S. President James Monroe once called the HRE, "a nerveless body… agitated with unceasing fermentation in its own bowels." After Napoleon's wars led to the destruction of the HRE in 1806, German-speaking people didn't miss it one bit. In place of the disunified, toothless empire, they started to believe that there was really just one "German people." If France and England could each be powerful and unified nation-states, they figured, so could Germany. Snow White and the several Germanies During the nineteenth century, the idea of a distinct German people with a common language and a homeland in Central Europe was more than an ambition of political leaders. Intellectuals produced art and scholarship that supported a German national identity. Two German-speaking academics known as the Brothers Grimm published a collection of German folk tales. These tales—now familiar throughout most of Western culture—included Cinderella, Rumpelstiltskin, and Snow White. They were written to create an imagined past that would give German-speakers a unified history and culture. These expressions of nationalism and emotion rejected Enlightenment ideas of universality and rationalism. By creating an ancient German culture, nationalist writers hoped to generate passion for a united Germany. Stamp of a girl with her eyes closed after eating a bite of an apple while the old woman who had given her the apple watches.German postal stamp showing Snow White eating a poisoned apple, 1967. The stories told by the Brothers Grimm are still a part of German national identity. By Vintageprintable1, CC BY-SA 2.0. Stamp of a girl with her eyes closed after eating a bite of an apple while the old woman who had given her the apple watches. German postal stamp showing Snow White eating a poisoned apple, 1967. The stories told by the Brothers Grimm are still a part of German national identity. By Vintageprintable1, CC BY-SA 2.0. Nationalism went hand-in-hand with two things: a powerful state and violence. Germany was no exception. Nationalist fervor could be molded by a powerful state. But understanding whether nationalistic emotions create a powerful state, or if a powerful state leads to more nationalism—well that's a chicken-and-egg sort of question. Powerful states did promote nationalist wars and policies, but a sense of nationalism among citizens helped make states more powerful. German unification is an example of both. Germany is also an example of the connection between nationalism and violence. As had happened in France, Italy, and the United States, deadly wars were fought to define the borders and character of Germany. In particular, German unification was won through two wars, between Prussia and Austria and Prussia and France. The two world wars that would come later had a lot to do with extreme nationalism. Nationalism also meant the exclusion of people defined as "other," or not part of the nation. In order to have a German nation, nationalists believed they had to define what was and was not German. Some leaders embraced racist views and targeted minorities like Jews and Roma. These nationalists portrayed these minorities as different and a danger to the nation. Half measures In the mid-nineteenth century, the goal of a united Germany was a long way off. In 1815, the Concert of Europe created the German Confederation after the allies defeated Napoleon I at Waterloo. The confederation was supposed to help unite the many different German-speaking states. But the purpose was also to limit the power of the two strongest German states—Prussia and the Austrian Empire—by balancing them against each other. Their rivalry eventually destroyed the Confederation. Map of Western Europe with the German Confederation outlined in red, Prussia in blue, and Austria in yellow.Map of the German Confederation. The border of the confederation is in red. Note that parts of Prussia (blue) and Austria (yellow) are outside the Confederation. By 52 Pickup, CC BY-SA 3.0. Map of Western Europe with the German Confederation outlined in red, Prussia in blue, and Austria in yellow. Map of the German Confederation. The border of the confederation is in red. Note that parts of Prussia (blue) and Austria (yellow) are outside the Confederation. By 52 Pickup, CC BY-SA 3.0. After the Revolutions of 1848, which erupted across Europe in the mid-nineteenth century, conservatives came to power in Prussia and built a strong state. However, around 1859, a Prussian liberal middle-class came to power. They were a new thing, made possible by the new wealth industrialization provided. The conservatives, who controlled the throne and the military, clashed with the liberals who kept winning parliamentary elections. However, the radical leftist factions in Prussian politics were weakened by the failure of the 1848 revolutions. Many democrats, socialists, and other radicals had migrated to the United States. Their departure weakened anti-monarchical forces in the Prussian government, creating an opening for a powerful leader. Prussia’s militarism creates Germany Meet King Wilhelm I of Prussia. No, that's not the powerful leader we mean, but we're getting there. Craving a victory over Austria, Wilhelm was encouraged when Italy challenged Austrian authority and achieved Italian unification in 1859-1860. He wanted to unify the German states under Prussian rule, but the liberals in Parliament opposed war. That's when Wilhelm revealed a secret weapon: Otto von Bismarck. Portrait of a man in military uniform looking angrily off to the side.The always cheerful Otto von Bismarck. By Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R68588 / P. Loescher & Petsch, CC BY-SA 3.0 de. Portrait of a man in military uniform looking angrily off to the side. The always cheerful Otto von Bismarck. By Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R68588 / P. Loescher & Petsch, CC BY-SA 3.0 de. Bismarck, a Prussian count, was a conservative patriot determined to increase the power of the Prussian state. When he was appointed Minister President in 1862, the liberal parliament that opposed him was all that stood between him and the power he wanted. So he came up with a strategy: ignore parliament. He ignored liberal election victories, expanded and reformed the military, levied whatever taxes he wanted, and consolidated the king's control of the army. In the 1860s, both conservatives and liberals in Prussia were nationalists. They wanted a unified German nation-state. But many liberals wanted to achieve this through negotiations with Austria. In an 1862 speech before Parliament, Bismarck warned that Prussia's borders would not be secured through speeches and resolutions "but by blood and iron." Bismarck wanted a Germany free of Austrian influence. To achieve this, he needed war. In 1866, Prussia attacked Austria, winning an easy victory in just seven weeks. The war proved that Prussia's army was the best in Europe. Prussia's victory ended the German Confederation. It also ended Austrian influence in the German states, and convinced the northern German states to join Prussia. Bismarck's success persuaded the liberals in Parliament to work with him, and more German states voluntarily joined Prussia. But in order to create a unified Germany, Bismarck needed another war, this time against France. The blood and iron strategy was not over. Map of the German states, with those acquired from Austria in red, those acquired from France in orange, and Alsace-Lorraine in beige. Map of Germany. The north German states, which joined Prussia after its defeat of Austria are in red. The south states, which joined after victory against France are in orange. And Alsace-Lorraine is in beige. By 52 Pickup, CC BY-SA 2.5. Map of the German states, with those acquired from Austria in red, those acquired from France in orange, and Alsace-Lorraine in beige. Map of Germany. The north German states, which joined Prussia after its defeat of Austria are in red. The south states, which joined after victory against France are in orange. And Alsace-Lorraine is in beige. By 52 Pickup, CC BY-SA 2.5. In 1870, France declared war on Prussia. The French emperor, Napoleon III, was willing to fight the mighty Prussian army because he believed that other countries would join him to prevent Prussian dominance. He had underestimated Bismarck's talent as a diplomat. Bismarck essentially tricked France into starting the war themselves, creating the illusion that Prussia was merely defending the German states. Bismarck turned the great powers of Europe against France and united the German states behind Prussia. The French had no idea what they were up against. Bismarck turned Prussian society toward war-making. The French army quickly ran into the teeth of a deadly, more efficient enemy army. Prussia was able to mobilize a million soldiers in a few weeks. Prussian trains, industry, and culture had been engineered over the previous decade to function in support of war. Bismarck's militarized Prussia—and later, Germany—seemed to express itself as a masculine state, referred to as "the Fatherland." Women had smaller roles in public life, and male soldiers were the heart of the patriotic state. In just four weeks, the Prussian army steamrolled the French, the Second French Empire collapsed, and Napoleon III was a prisoner of Prussia. The war dragged on for several more months. The Prussian army laid siege to Paris, and the starving citizens surrendered, giving the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to the new German Empire. Painting of a military crowd gathered in a formal hall with several officers on a raised platform holding banners.Proclamation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, France. Wilhelm I stand on the dais, and Bismarck wears white in the center of the painting. By Anton von Werner, public domain. Painting of a military crowd gathered in a formal hall with several officers on a raised platform holding banners. Proclamation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, France. Wilhelm I stand on the dais, and Bismarck wears white in the center of the painting. By Anton von Werner, public domain. Juggling on horseback After Bismarck had secured the borders of the nation of Germany, he set out to assure the other great powers that Germany didn't want to expand any more. He promised Britain that it was welcome to its large empire and control of the seas. Germany would not compete with them in that arena. Once again using skillful diplomacy, Bismarck negotiated peace deals designed to maintain a balance of power in Europe. He held a conference in Berlin in 1884, to agree on how the European empires would divide up Africa in order to avoid a war between European states. His pursuit of a balance of power is part of the reason he stopped short of destroying France and Austria during the wars of unification. He believed that Germany needed to establish its borders but not become so powerful that it upset the balance. Peace in Europe depended on a strong (but not too strong) France, Austria, and Germany. King Wilhelm I called Bismarck's work in building and maintaining a complex system of alliances "juggling on horseback." It was incredibly delicate. Without a diplomat of Bismarck's skill holding everything together, the system seemed likely to collapse. When Wilhelm II decided to fire Bismarck in 1890, and expand Germany's empire, the balance of power crumbled, leading eventually to the First World War. Later, the nationalist, militarized state model of Bismarck—that had been so effective in unifying Germany—would see disturbing echoes in the violent German totalitarianism of the mid-twentieth century. Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: In general, what were politics and government like around the world at the beginning of the Long Nineteenth Century?What important new political ideas resulted from the Enlightenment?What is a revolution? What revolutions does this introduction suggest you will be studying in this unit?What is nationalism, and what role does this author suggest it played in political revolutions? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: What ideas from the political revolutions described in this overview continue to be important today?Does this overview provide any sense of the limitations of these revolutions? Who do you think didn’t get to fully participate in these changes? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Unit 2: Liberal and National Revolutions Painting of J.B. Belley, a deputy for Saint Domingue, looking off into the distance while leaning on a bust. Trevor Getz The Long Nineteenth Century was a period of epic political change. Ideas like the nation-state, sovereignty, and liberalism led to revolutions with enduring effects. What the long nineteenth century contains is a period of revolutions in politics, economics, culture, and social life. The word revolution often makes us think of rebellion and war. While that is often part of it, the word really just means "change"—on a pretty epic scale. Some changes were slow. The development of nationalism and its spread around the world was so gradual that its full story goes beyond even the end of this unit, and it has become one of the most powerful forces in the way people act today. As for the more dramatic events of change, there were political revolutions in this period that created the most democratic and liberal nation-states of the age. In this unit, we look at the political transformations that altered the way communities were governed and how people participated in government. Political change in the Long Nineteenth Century To understand political change in the long nineteenth century, we must remember that before this era, government pretty much everywhere in the world was a small group of people making decisions for a larger population. Often, these people ruled by right of birth. Nobles, kings, shahs, emperors, sultans, chieftains, and members of the elite never applied for the job – they inherited it from their parents. They made decisions and wrote laws that suited them, and their commands were carried out by clerks, scribes, soldiers, or servants. Most people had no real political rights or role at all. Some small states were governed by councils, of sorts, in which quite a few people participated. But these were rare exceptions. In 1750, the few ruled the many in almost all parts of the world, and the many had little choice in how they were ruled. Painting of an emperor sitting on his throne, carrying a bird and surrounded by nobles and a young boy.The splendor of Aurangzeb, Emperor of the Mughal Empire. Eighteenth-century rulers, whether Aurangzeb or his counterparts in Europe or elsewhere, ruled because of their own authority, not the will of their people. By Bichitr, public domain. Painting of an emperor sitting on his throne, carrying a bird and surrounded by nobles and a young boy. The splendor of Aurangzeb, Emperor of the Mughal Empire. Eighteenth-century rulers, whether Aurangzeb or his counterparts in Europe or elsewhere, ruled because of their own authority, not the will of their people. By Bichitr, public domain. After 1750, things began to change. Today's world of nation-states, where it's common for many or most of the population to have some say in how they are governed, is a world that started with those changes. The new ideas from this period are generally called liberal political ideas, from the word liberty, suggesting people should have the freedom to govern themselves, as a group and as individuals. Three approaches to studying political change Enlightenment In this unit, we look at this change in three ways. First, we examine how intellectual and economic changes leading up to the long nineteenth century set the stage for wider political participation. In the years before 1750, new ideas had been circulating around the world, and the European colonies in the Americas were listening. Trade-hungry European merchants, religious travelers, and others had brought back ideas from around the world, including new concepts about technology, government, religion, and individuality. These moments of bursts of new technologies and ideas have come to be called the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. Some of this new thinking called for greater personal and group rights. It's a sad fact that history is full of great ideas that didn't go anywhere. But this time there were different groups of people who found these concepts useful, even if for different reasons. For starters, those who were economically oppressed, like enslaved people in the Americas and peasants in Europe, had everything to gain. The notion of more individuals getting a say in government seemed to promise liberation and a better life. At the same time, wealthy people saw the revolutions as a chance to take power from the kings and nobles who ruled them. Then there were the business people – plantation owners and merchants in the European empires in the Americas and Europe – who thought they could profit from the changes called for in these new ideas. Economics and politics came together in these revolutions to help these groups of people get a share of government for the first time. But the bright glow of the "Enlightenment" did not fully address the darkness of oppression. Far from it. Many more people – particularly women and the enslaved – still lacked basic political rights and a share in government. Political revolution In the second part of this unit, we look more closely four major political revolutions of this era. We see how the Haitian, French, American, and Latin American revolutions were born from the economics and ideas of this era. We follow each one to see their causes and consequences, and how they influenced each other. We also look at the limits of these revolutions – who got to participate in the new politics in each place, and who did not. Nationalism Finally, we explore these changes through one of the principal ideas that emerged from them – nationalism. Nationalism is the idea that a people should rule, and govern, a state of their own. It is tied to another important idea from this era: sovereignty, meaning "self-rule". Nationalism played an important role in the creation of a Haitian nation, a French nation, an American nation, and many new nations in Latin America. Each nation – defined in this context as a community of people – wanted their own state1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript, and each of them got it. But nationalism didn't end with these revolutions. It found expression in the creation of more nations throughout this era. It played a role in the birth of the nations of Italy and Germany, which had previously been dozens of smaller European states. It led ethnic minorities within large empires to argue that they deserved a state of their own. It led to revolts in the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, and other big states. In China and India, nationalism played a role in rebellions, though these were ultimately unsuccessful. Liberal political ideas and nationalism would continue to have an impact well after the long nineteenth century. But we really see their birth in this era. They were among the most consequential types of changes in an era of many revolutions, helping to create the modern world we live in today. [Notes] Author bio Trevor Getz is a professor of African and world history at San Francisco State University. He has been the author or editor of 11 books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and has coproduced several prize-winning documentaries. Trevor is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Describe the Italian peninsula before 1800. How were political communities organized?How did Napoleon help start Italian nationalism?Why did the revolutions of 1848 fail to create a unified Italy?What helped Count Cavour succeed in defeating the Austrians and establishing the Kingdom of Italy in 1861? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Most nationalist histories are told from the perspective of great men. How do you think the story is different when told from the perspective of a common woman?The woman in this narrative experienced a lot in her lifetime. Using the communities frame, make a list of the different identities she might have had and the different communities of which she was a part. Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Italian Nationalism: A Point of View Painting of a solemn and concerned crowd surrounding a sickly woman being carried in a horse-drawn wagon. Bennett Sherry The histories of nations are often told as the stories of great men. Men like Otto von Bismarck or George Washington loom large in nationalist narratives. How do our interpretations change when we consider events through the life of a single unnamed (and in this case, imaginary) woman? Too many Italies Napoleon Bonaparte launched Italian nationalism with his invasion in 1796. For the next century, men with famous names and a bunch of different ideologies shot at and argued with each other to define what "Italy" should mean. But this isn't their story. It's yours: an unnamed woman forgotten by history, who lived it. You were born a Venetian. You will die an Italian. In between, you'll be many things. Map of Italy showing eight separate states, indicated by different colors. A map of Italy in 1843. Showing at least eight separate states, most of them controlled by the Austrian Empire. By Gigillo83, CC BY-SA 3.0. Map of Italy showing eight separate states, indicated by different colors. A map of Italy in 1843. Showing at least eight separate states, most of them controlled by the Austrian Empire. By Gigillo83, CC BY-SA 3.0. Your parents lived in the Republic of Venice. But by your birth in 1805, the city had been conquered three times: first by the French, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, then by the Austrians, then by Napoleon again. You were ten when Napoleon was defeated. Your parents hoped for a free Venice. But at the Congress of Vienna, the great powers handed your home back to Austria. The Italian peninsula has rarely been unified. Before 1861, the last people to rule a unified Italy called themselves Roman emperors. For 1,200 years, the Italian peninsula was filled, not with Italians, but with Florentines, Milanese, Genoese, Neapolitans, and Venetians, like you. They spoke in different dialects. In many places, French, Spanish, or Latin were more common than Italian. These Italian city-states hated each other more than they feared foreigners. In his 1532 book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli called for a prince to unite the peninsula and "liberate Italy from the barbarians." No one listened, at least not until Napoleon. For centuries, Italy was Europe's battlefield. France, Spain, and Austria fought over the Italian city-states. The city-states played along, using wars to build their own power. Venetians would rather pay tribute to Paris than be conquered by Naples. But Napoleon's invasion changed all that. French, and later Austrian, occupation gave Italians a common enemy and launched the story of Italian nationalism. This is also where your story begins. A Risorgimento life Your unpublicized political life was shaped by three famous men. They disagreed on ideology, but united under the cause of Italian unification—or Risorgimento, meaning "revival." They were: Count Cavour – a liberal monarchist who wanted a united Italy ruled under a constitution by the king of Piedmont-Sardinia.Giuseppe Mazzini – a republican who refused to compromise on his ideals. He wanted the end of monarchy and an Italian republic.Giuseppe Garibaldi – a true radical. After a failed 1834 uprising in Genoa he was sentenced to death, but didn't like that idea much so he fled to South America and fought in Uruguay and Brazil. A brilliant general and guerilla fighter, Garibaldi became an international celebrity. He died in his bed in 1882 at the age of 74. Three different men, all Italian nationalists. Across Italy, men and women of every political ideology took up the tri-color flag of Italian nationalism. Conservative Catholics, monarchists, liberals, republicans, and socialists all called themselves nationalists. A painting of four people, two of whom are holding rifles, while another is expressing great shock. The Italian flag hangs in the background.A painting of Italian nationalists in Milan, 1848 beneath the tri-color Italian flag. Public domain. A painting of four people, two of whom are holding rifles, while another is expressing great shock. The Italian flag hangs in the background. A painting of Italian nationalists in Milan, 1848 beneath the tri-color Italian flag. Public domain. When you were a young girl, your father joined the Carbonari, a secret society devoted to revolutionary ideals and resistance to Austrian control. In 1820, revolts in the south inspired uprisings in northern Italy. Your father and other Carbonari headed to Milan, where he died on an Austrian bayonet in 1821. Several years later, you met your husband and moved to Genoa (a city in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia). Your late father would not have approved. During the 1830s, new rebellions erupted all over Europe. You first saw Garibaldi in Genoa during his failed uprising. The march of the Austrian army soon crushed the dream of a united Italy. Yet, the nationalist fervor that these years had sparked didn't die. You, your friends, and many others were convinced that Risorgimento was not some fantasy. It would happen, and you would help make it happen. These failed revolutions meant that a bunch of Italian nationalists went into exile, either in the Americas or in Europe. There, figures like Mazzini lived comfortable lives as celebrities. There, they plotted with each other about their revenge, safe from Austrian bayonets. You stayed in Italy. A fire across Europe In 1848, Europe erupted in revolution. In Rome and Palermo, Tuscany and Naples, Milan and Venice, revolutionaries took to the streets, demanding constitutions. Charles Albert, king of Piedmont-Sardinia, marched to the aid of Milan and Venice and waged war against Austria, hoping to unite northern Italy under a Sardinian flag. This was what convinced you to sign on with Garibaldi. Portrait of Garibaldi wearing a decorated hat, a striped covering, and holding. Cane.Garibaldi in 1866. Ever since he met his first wife, Anita, in Brazil, Garibaldi wore a South American poncho into battle, even when he returned to Italy in 1848. Public domain. Portrait of Garibaldi wearing a decorated hat, a striped covering, and holding. Cane. Garibaldi in 1866. Ever since he met his first wife, Anita, in Brazil, Garibaldi wore a South American poncho into battle, even when he returned to Italy in 1848. Public domain. Portrait of Ana Maria wearing a white suit, looking off into the distance. Ana Maria de Jesus Ribeiro da Silva—better known as Anita. Public domain. Portrait of Ana Maria wearing a white suit, looking off into the distance. Ana Maria de Jesus Ribeiro da Silva—better known as Anita. Public domain. In the autumn of 1848, you joined Garibaldi's volunteer army as they fought a guerilla war on their way from Venice to Rome. Soon after your arrival, the revolutionaries—including Mazzini—declared a new Roman Republic. It was in Rome, during a few shining months of revolutionary victory, that you met Anita. She was Garibaldi's wife, a Brazilian, whom he had met in South America. A fearless fighter, Anita taught Garibaldi to ride a horse and became his comrade in arms. The Roman Republic lasted a glorious few months. But—as was the case in all the 1848 revolutions across Europe—the disunity of the Italian revolutionaries was their downfall. Florentines failed to cooperate with Romans, and republicans failed to cooperate with monarchists. The dream of a united Italy crumbled. In the north, the Austrians defeated Charles Albert and he was replaced by his son, Victor Emmanuel. The Austrian army once again marched across Italy, crushing the rebellions. The last two cities to remain free were Venice and Rome. After pressure from French Catholics, the French army marched to Rome to put the Pope back in control. Garibaldi's army, which included you, won two brilliant victories against larger armies. But the counter-revolutionary forces were too many. The republic fell, and you fled the city with Garibaldi and a few hundred others. Two months later, Venice fell to the Austrians. As you fled Rome in 1849, Anita, who was pregnant, died of malaria shortly before she would have been 28. The rest of you made it to safety in Genoa and Garibaldi fled to exile in New York, Mazzini to Switzerland. You stayed in Italy. The Kingdom of Italy Along with the uncompromising Mazzini, you spent the Second War of Italian Independence on the sidelines. You were older, and the disappointments of 1848 lingered. But your children were full of patriotism. So, when Prime Minister Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel decided to unify Italy, your sons marched off to war. Cavour was a good diplomat. So, unlike in 1848, in 1859, Piedmont-Sardinia had French allies against the Austrians. In exchange for their support, the French received Nice and Savoy in northern Italy. And unlike 1848, radical revolutionaries were sidelined or made compromises in the 1860s. The biggest compromise was that Italy would be a kingdom, not a republic. The king would be Victor Emmanuel. Your sons served in his army. Cartoon of two men sitting at a table, one holding two hooks, the other studying a boot.A satirical 1861 cartoon, showing Garibaldi and Cavour making Italy, as represented by the boot. Public domain. Cartoon of two men sitting at a table, one holding two hooks, the other studying a boot. A satirical 1861 cartoon, showing Garibaldi and Cavour making Italy, as represented by the boot. Public domain. Years later you would read a book that actually included a first-hand account of the battle that killed your oldest son: No quarter is given; it is a sheer butchery; a struggle between savage beasts, maddened with blood and fury. Even the wounded fight to the last gasp…almost crazed with suffering. They begged to be put out of their misery, and writhed with faces distorted in the grip of the death struggle. From A Memory of Solferino, by Harry Dunant You take some comfort knowing that the book helped create the International Committee of the Red Cross. Apparently, they want laws to protect soldiers in war. You wish them well, but with all you've seen, you're not hopeful. Painting of a chaotic battlefield with uniformed officers on the left and more plainclothes individuals wearing red on the right, all holding rifles.Expedition of the Thousand, Unification of Italy - Giuseppe Garibaldi at the Battle of Calatafimi, 15 May 1860 by Remigio Legat, oil on canvas, 1860. DEA / A. RIZZI / Getty Images Painting of a chaotic battlefield with uniformed officers on the left and more plainclothes individuals wearing red on the right, all holding rifles. Expedition of the Thousand, Unification of Italy - Giuseppe Garibaldi at the Battle of Calatafimi, 15 May 1860 by Remigio Legat, oil on canvas, 1860. DEA / A. RIZZI / Getty Images You reflect back on what you've been through. In 1861, you became an Italian. Victor Emmanuel, Cavour, and Garibaldi waged another war against Austria and they united the Italian Peninsula. The nationalist dream became reality. But your dreams for Italy were far from this reality. You bled for Italy in 1848. You fought for an Italy free of kings. But in this new Italy, women are not allowed to vote. In 1866, the Kingdom of Italy fought another war and expelled the Austrians from Venice. In 1870, the king annexed Rome. By 1871, Victor Emmanuel II sat on a throne in his new capital of Rome as the first king of a united Italy since the Romans. You should have seen this coming. The nationalists who led armies across Italy—even those you fought with—spoke of a "Fatherland". Italy was not, it seemed, to be a nation for women. King Victor Emmanuel took an old Roman title: "Father of the Fatherland". A Calatafimi obituary The same day as Garibaldi dies quietly in his bed, you die quietly in yours. While countless books will tell his story, only your children and grandchildren will tell yours. But your story is a "Risorgimento" story as much as his. You never meet any of your great-grandchildren, and many won't live long. Most of the boys die in the trenches of the First World War. The ones who survive will resent how little Italy receives after the war—how little their brothers died for. They join a leader promoting a new, extreme form of Italian nationalism, called fascism. His name is Benito Mussolini, and his ideas will help inspire some of the world's greatest atrocities, and its deadliest war. Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in history from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a research associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What were three important economic changes that accompanied the growth of capitalism in this period, according to the author?How did the Seven years’ War (in which France and Britain were on opposite sides) start a process that led to both the American and French Revolutions, according to the article?What economic problems helped lead the middle class bourgeoisie and the poor to combine in the French Revolution? 4., What four groups in Haiti all had complaints against the French government, and what were those complaints? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: After reading this article, do you think economic conditions were more important, as important, or less important than ideas in leading to revolution in these three places?Were economic conditions also important in the revolutions in Latin America? How would you find out? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Economic and Material Causes of Revolt Drawing of a crowd of women marching with miscellaneous weapons and dragging a cannon. By Bennett Sherry The world changed at the end of the eighteenth century. People took to the streets to protest their material conditions. One revolution shook the foundations of the capitalist world economy. A world in crisis: The eighteenth century The end of the eighteenth century found a world in crisis. Social structures were changing rapidly. Three revolutions—the American, French, and Haitian—transformed global relationships. Though most people think of these as political upheavals, here you'll explore the argument that the late eighteenth-century revolutions had economic causes. The rise of a capitalist global economy produced social upheavals. Capitalism—an economic system in which property is privately held and profits are reinvested to increase production—was quickly becoming the dominant economic system in Western Europe and the Americas. Three important changes accompanied this system: European capitalists built plantations in their colonies abroad. Plantation workers—mostly enslaved people—lived on site, producing crops like sugar and cotton. These valuable harvests were then sent to industrial centers in Europe to be made into consumer goods.Meanwhile, a new class of working poor emerged in European cities as more low-paying workshops and early factories popped up.Finally, as global trade expanded and intensified, an urban upper-middle class – the bourgeoisie – capitalized on new markets and grew wealthier. Both the working poor and the upper-middle class were increasingly unhappy with how they were governed. All of this took place during global turmoil. Rising populations and shifting social relations from 1500 to 1800 sparked thousands of peasant revolts and urban riots. Famine was a constant threat from Western Europe to Japan. One bad harvest could place millions at risk of starvation. In response to rising food prices, the poor took to the streets again and again, attacking the rich. In most cases, the government and land-owning aristocracy brutally repressed resistance. In America, France, and Haiti, however, these old tactics failed to stop people rising up to protest their material conditions.1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript Material causes of revolt The great political revolutions of the long nineteenth century are usually described in political terms, but they had economic causes as well. The high-minded words of the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man were full of great, inclusive ideas. However, these revolutions were as much about taxes and property as they were liberty and political representation. The idea of popular sovereignty goes deeper than simply who decides who sits in power. A key part of sovereignty is a person's control over the valuable products of their labor and the lucrative resources of their land. Painting of the Bastille, a large fortress, in flames and smoke, as people fight in the foreground.The Storming of the Bastille, by Jean-Pierre Houel, 1789. By Jean-Pierre Houël, Public domain. Painting of the Bastille, a large fortress, in flames and smoke, as people fight in the foreground. The Storming of the Bastille, by Jean-Pierre Houel, 1789. By Jean-Pierre Houël, Public domain. War, also, is usually as financial as it is political. The historian C.A. Bayly argues that the American and French Revolutions were a direct result of the Seven Years' War—the first global war. The Seven Years' War was a conflict waged between England and France. It drew in every major European power, and its battles were fought on five continents. The war began as a struggle for colonial territory in North America and quickly spread to the rest of the world. The financial aftermath of this war—incredibly expensive for both sides—ignited the American and French Revolutions. So the two most significant revolutions in world history were set in motion not by lofty political ideals, but by two global empires killing each other to control the resources, labor, and markets of the Americas and Asia. Map of the world with several regions in green, including Mexico, Central America, most of South America, Russia, and Western Europe, and others in blue, including Brazil, Canada, the northeast US, Portugal, and Britain.A map showing the two alliances of the Seven Years’ War. By Gabagool, CC BY 3.0. Map of the world with several regions in green, including Mexico, Central America, most of South America, Russia, and Western Europe, and others in blue, including Brazil, Canada, the northeast US, Portugal, and Britain. A map showing the two alliances of the Seven Years’ War. By Gabagool, CC BY 3.0. Rich men fight the high cost of tea: The American Revolution The American Revolution was really about taxes. Cash crops from the American colonies made Western European countries the richest in the world, and were the lifeblood of the British empire. The Seven Years' War put the empire in serious debt, and the plan for financial recovery was to tax its American colonies. Photograph of a white teapot with black decoration and text reading “No Stamp Act”. Teapot celebrating 1766 repeal of the Stamp Act – basically a low-tech meme. By Daderot, Public domain. Photograph of a white teapot with black decoration and text reading “No Stamp Act”. Teapot celebrating 1766 repeal of the Stamp Act – basically a low-tech meme. By Daderot, Public domain. American colonists resented the increased taxes as well as the changes in how goods like tobacco and tea were traded. As the price of tea imports rose and the price of tobacco exports fell, calls for colonial representation in the British Parliament increased. In a historical irony, American plantation owners declared their independence and belief in the natural equality of all men because they weren't getting enough money for the tobacco that they grew with the labor of enslaved people. The British defeat in the American Revolution helped set the stage for later waves of anti-colonial revolutions. With fewer American resources to fuel its growing industries, the British Empire increasingly set its eyes on expansion in Asia and Africa. Have you seen the price of bread? The French Revolution In France, people at the middle and bottom of the social pyramid started to question France's social order. The aristocracy and clergy (church officials) dominated French politics and enjoyed lives of luxury. The rest of the country started to resent the dominance of the aristocracy. The upper-middle class resented that they lacked political rights no matter how much wealth they owned. Meanwhile, almost everyone else struggled to eat in years of bad harvest. Drawing of a crowd of women marching with miscellaneous weapons and dragging a cannon. Very similar to cover image except the colors are more vibrant.Women’s March on Versailles, October 1789. Public domain. Drawing of a crowd of women marching with miscellaneous weapons and dragging a cannon. Very similar to cover image except the colors are more vibrant. Women’s March on Versailles, October 1789. Public domain. The harvest of 1788 was particularly bad. Combined with the rising taxes that King Louis XVI levied (charged) to pay for France's wars against England, the rising price of bread drove people to revolt. In October 1789, thousands of women marched from the marketplace—where they were trying to buy bread for their families—and took up arms to besiege the Palace of Versailles. Though the working poor were often the ones rising up in the streets and storming the Bastille2^22squared, the French bourgeoisie directed the course of the early revolution and wrote its documents. The bourgeoisie were the urban upper-middle class who became wealthy and educated as a result of the rise of a capitalist system. The bourgeois rejected the traditional dominance of the aristocracy and revolted to seize power for themselves. As in America, these French revolutionaries grew their wealth in an imperialist system of global trade and cash crop plantations, made possible with the lives and labor of enslaved people. There's no good year for a bad harvest, but the one in 1788 could not have had worse timing. The French king raised taxes just as the increasingly wealthy middle class started to organize around Enlightenment ideas of popular sovereignty and the poor took to the streets to demand fair food prices. Not the best time to run out of food. The right to property?: The Haitian Revolution The French Caribbean colony of Saint Domingue (today Haiti) was the most lucrative colony in the world. Coffee, sugar and the labor of hundreds of thousands of enslaved West Africans filled the treasury of the French Empire and lined the pockets of the French aristocracy. The colony produced 40 percent of the sugar and 60 percent of the coffee consumed by Europeans. In Saint Domingue, class divisions were even more extreme than in France. Enslaved people were nearly 90 percent of the island's population. Most had been born in Africa before slavers took them to the Caribbean. At the top of the social hierarchy, wealthy white landowners (grands blancs) controlled most of the colony's resources and labor. Between enslaved people and rich white landowners, were two other groups: poor white laborers and artisans (petits blancs) and free people of color, who were often mixed-race children of grands blancs and enslaved people. A group of people, mostly women, gathered in a square with miscellaneous wares to sell, surrounded by several buildings and a nearby port.Linen Market, Dominica, by Agostino Brunias. Public domain. A group of people, mostly women, gathered in a square with miscellaneous wares to sell, surrounded by several buildings and a nearby port. Linen Market, Dominica, by Agostino Brunias. Public domain. Each of these three classes had complaints. Grands blancs resented being taxed by the distant French monarch. Free people of color knew they would never be considered equal no matter how much money they had or how many enslaved people they owned. Petits blancs identified with the revolutionaries in France and rejected the superiority of grands blancs and free people of color. But it was the bottom of the social structure that made Saint Domingue so unstable. Most of the colony's people had been born on a different continent before the French enslaved them and forced them to work under some of the most horrific conditions imaginable. In 1791, these social tensions erupted into open conflict, culminating in the world's first successful revolt of enslaved people. The Haitian constitutions took Enlightenment ideas about equality and applied them literally. Just like the French and American, the Haitian Constitution of 1806 guaranteed a right to property. But included under property was "the right to enjoy and dispose of…one's work and industry." That meant people had the right to choose and be paid for their work, rights incompatible with slavery. This stood in direct contrast to the ways that the American, French, and other European countries used the right to property to protect the institution of slavery. The Haitian Constitutions outlawed slavery and extended citizenship to all non- white foreigners who came to Haiti. In these ways, the Haitians took the ideas of the Enlightenment and applied them to the material conditions they faced. A man in an elegant blue and red revolutionary uniform, riding a horse and wielding a sword.Toussaint Louverture, one of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution. A brilliant general and diplomat, he helped defeat European armies and secure an independent Haiti. By John Carter Brown Library, Public domain. A man in an elegant blue and red revolutionary uniform, riding a horse and wielding a sword. Toussaint Louverture, one of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution. A brilliant general and diplomat, he helped defeat European armies and secure an independent Haiti. By John Carter Brown Library, Public domain. As the historian Ada Ferrer puts it, "the abstract right of liberty proclaimed elsewhere was transformed into a concrete prohibition on slavery." The Haitians embraced the right to property asserted by Enlightenment thinkers, but they defined it "in a way that no liberal power would have conceived at the time." As a result, the nations of the Atlantic—including the United States—systematically excluded Haiti from the world economy. Fearful that Haiti would inspire enslaved people in America to claim freedom using Enlightenment ideas, President Thomas Jefferson refused to acknowledge the new nation. An age of revolutions These three Atlantic Revolutions—American, French, and Haitian—were part of a broader world crisis at the end of the eighteenth century. Sikh uprisings against the Mughal Empire in India, Pugachev's Revolt in the Russian Empire, and the White Lotus Rebellion in China mirrored the rebellions in the Atlantic world. Bayly argues that the global conflict of the Seven Years' War "hastened [quickened] the crisis of the old regimes in Europe." And in turn, the Atlantic revolutions "deepened the crisis of the old order in the Americas, Asia, and North Africa." This cycle of revolution and crisis linked distant people and continued through the nineteenth century. These eighteenth-century revolutions were about national and popular sovereignty, yes. But at a deeper level, they were about restructuring the relationships between people and the way that goods and wealth were produced and distributed. [Notes] Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Where was Rifa’a al-Tahtawi from, and what was he doing in France in 1827?Who was in charge of Egypt in this period, and what were some of his ideas?What ideas did al-Tahtawi come up with and share when he returned to France?What idea did al-Tahtawi reject for Egypt?How does the artist use art and design to demonstrate al-Tahtawi’s belief that science and religion could co-exist, as opposed to French ideas that they were in opposition to each other? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of al-Tahtawi support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about the Enlightenment and political revolutions of the long nineteenth century? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Rifa’a al-Tahtawi (Graphic Biography) Writer: Sean Bloch Artist: Liz Clarke Rifa’a al-Tahtawi was an Egyptian scholar and imam who traveled to France in the nineteenth century. Upon his return, he wrote a book reconciling Islam and modern science. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What effects did the industrialization of cotton cloth production have on the Indian economy?Why was de-industrialization a bad thing for India?What political explanations does the author give for this economic failure?Why did India suffer so many famines in the nineteenth century? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: You’ve now read four articles about four very different sorts of experience with Western imperialism and industrialization. Why do you think that Japan escaped the sort of colonialism and de-industrialization that China, Egypt, and India all experienced?How does an event like the de-industrialization of India support, extend, or challenge the production and distribution frame narrative? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Imperialism and De-Industrialization in India Drawing of the Mughal Emperor of India speaking with the British governor of India as groups of British and Indian men surround them watching. By Whitney Howarth How did India go from producing clothing, to producing cotton? Doing business with Britain seemed like a good idea at the time, but one country's industrial advances can have the reverse effect on another. Before 1750, much of the world went shopping for textiles (cloth) in India. Some historians believe that India was the most important manufacturer in world trade, producing about 25 percent of the world's industrial output at that time. After 1750, this changed dramatically, and by the mid-nineteenth century, most textile production had shifted to Britain. A key part of that story is the de-industrialization of India. Photo of an ornate, floral coat made from cotton.A fine cotton morning coat produced in India for sale to a wealthy French aristocrat. Before de-industrialization, India produced much of the finest finished textiles in the world. Cleveland Museum of Art. Public domain. Photo of an ornate, floral coat made from cotton. A fine cotton morning coat produced in India for sale to a wealthy French aristocrat. Before de-industrialization, India produced much of the finest finished textiles in the world. Cleveland Museum of Art. Public domain. India's strong economy was based on the exports of the cotton textiles manufactured there. It was devastated by European industrialization and the commercial changes this inspired. India's impressive textile output had relied on hand-loom technology, but that part of the process was now done by machines in Britain 4,500 miles away. British industrialists were also careful not to let the new technology get into the hands of competitors in India. As a result, the Indian economy collapsed. Millions of laborers lost their jobs and had to work in cash-crop agriculture—specifically, raw cotton—to survive. So instead of exporting cloth (a manufactured good) India became an exporter of cotton (a raw material). This process, which took a hundred years, is what we mean when we say "de-industrialization." It meant a lot of the profit for turning the cotton into the cloth now went to Britain instead of to India… where the cotton was. Let's explore this process in greater detail. Shifting global patterns of production By the mid-eighteenth century, more and more English merchants were arriving on the shores of India demanding raw cotton instead of textiles. They shipped it back to English mills where machines spun it into yarn and threads to mass produce textiles. The result? Tons of inexpensive factory-made textiles flooded the markets in England, Europe and India. Sellers of handmade fabrics in Indian markets could not compete with the lower priced English cloth that was suddenly so abundant. Indian weavers and those who sold their products were put out of work. This shift in production negatively impacted India's long-term industrial development. De-industrialization resulted in wide-spread famines, mass migrations (as weavers sought new jobs) and the de-stabilization of markets throughout the region. Hundreds of thousands of displaced, now jobless textile laborers were evicted from their lands or unable to eat as wages declined, taxes increased, and the cost of rice and other foods rose. The decline of the Mughal Empire Let's look at some of the political history behind this change in production and distribution. One reason for India's early domination of global textile manufacturing and trade had been its stability as a community. Before the eighteenth century, the Mughal Empire had created a vast and safe infrastructure that supported a strong export trade system of cotton cloth. Indian silks, jute1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript and Kashmir cloths were used or worn in lands as far as Persia and China. Mughal society also prized full employment, and the hand-made cloth industry kept many people employed. Additionally, the Mughal state provided safe ports for international business. It encouraged private traders to expand trade networks. The state worked through a complex political alliance system to collect taxes. These taxes were used to develop military and public works. They built safer roads, bridges, water systems, and port cities. Trade expanded and the region's economy was strong. However, this long period of prosperity ended by the mid-eighteenth century. The centralized authority of the Mughal Empire slowly lost its grip as rival leaders and European merchants gained more control of the region. As the Mughal state declined, increasingly independent merchants and leaders in each region of India began forging new commercial alliances. They did business with Portuguese, Dutch, French, and English trade companies and merchants. Some Europeans arrived as independent merchants employed by private joint stock trading companies. The English East India Company (E.I.C.), established in 1600, was one of them. Others came as representatives of foreign governments to trade on behalf of monarchs. In either case, local governors and princes did not think their commercial contracts with Europeans were political. Nor did they consider their partnerships with European agents any threat to their power or to the authority of Mughal state. Similarly, wealthy Bengali bankers were willing to extend a credit line to Englishmen in service of the English East India Company. Through these merchants and bankers, lots of money was now flowing around the local economy. Much of it was in the form of silver and gold originally from the Americas. But this cash wasn't staying in India. It was going to foreign companies who were buying cash crops like cotton in India, but then turning them into finished products in Europe. Some of it was also being used to pay foreign mercenaries. That included the troops of the East India Company, who fought the wars that happened as the Mughal Empire was breaking up. It was kind of like a deer, annoyed by ticks, hiring a lion to pick them off. From merchants to colonizers Let's talk about those hired troops. Little did the Mughal state realize that by granting trade companies, like the E.I.C., the rights to trade, they were also inviting more European political involvement. European merchants traveled with the troops they employed to protect their goods. These armies grew even bigger than many national armies back home. The merchants also recruited local soldiers, called sepoys. As more European troops were stationed in port cities along the coast of India, it was obvious that their military strength could become a commercial advantage. Europeans became more involved in local politics and in local military rivalries in order to gain greater access to the goods and land they wanted. Painting of an East India Company official sitting on a carpet relaxing as an Indian man tends to him. The official is shown using a hookah pipe.An East India Company officer around 1750, by Indian artist Dip Chand. Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Public domain. Painting of an East India Company official sitting on a carpet relaxing as an Indian man tends to him. The official is shown using a hookah pipe. An East India Company officer around 1750, by Indian artist Dip Chand. Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Public domain. Because they had so many troops, the East India Company secured a treaty with the Mughals to appoint men to political offices, control native military forces, and collect taxes in the province of Bengal. This gave them direct authority to control agricultural lands and the crops grown on them in this province. Soon, they expanded their control to other provinces. Slowly but surely, parts of India were absorbed into the British Empire, one piece at a time. By rejecting older indigenous traditions about how land was owned and used, and re-organizing the tax system, the British government created conditions that helped their commercial goals, but hurt the Indian people. Small rice farmers who could not pay their taxes were evicted and larger plantations were created where more cotton could be grown to feed the textile mills of England. Convincing the Indians that they had to wear British factory-made pants, vests and bowler hats in order to be truly "civilized" also insured greater commercial profits. The shift in political control was now paving the way for de-industrialization. The results As cotton fields replaced rice fields, the cost of food rose. A series of crippling famines hit India in 1769, 1783, and 1791, which resulted in about 30 million deaths. Famines are usually linked to environmental factors like drought, but most historians agree it wasn't just that. Indians had less access to food because of the dramatic shifts in the economy. The East India Company had focused on profitable cotton more than on food. This further weakened the region, and paved the way for formal British colonial rule. Photo of an orange, green, and white flag with a spinning wheel depicted on the white center. This flag is also known as a Swaraj Flag.The Swaraj Flag, officially adopted by the Indian National Congress in 1931. Public domain. Photo of an orange, green, and white flag with a spinning wheel depicted on the white center. This flag is also known as a Swaraj Flag. The Swaraj Flag, officially adopted by the Indian National Congress in 1931. Public domain. Later, in the twentieth century, when Indian nationalists organized a campaign against British rule, they saw this period of de-industrialization in the eighteenth century as the beginning of their own conquest. Educated people in India identified the economic practices of the British Empire as extractive and exploitive. They saw their hope for greater political independence linked to greater economic self-reliance, a concept they called swadeshi. Nationalists framed this struggle symbolically to inspire people from all backgrounds to participate in mass protests. Many students and laborers took action, first in Bengal and then elsewhere. They heaped British factory-made pants, vests, coats and bowler hats into piles in the streets and burned them. Non-violent freedom fighters like Gandhi encouraged Indians to wear home-spun cloth (khadi) in traditional styles. No more mimicking Westerners and their fashions. Gandhi even promoted the use of spinning wheels in every home, by men and women alike. In 1931, the first flag adopted by the Indian National Congress featured a spinning wheel in celebration of India's proud industrial past. [Notes] Author bio Howarth, is an Associate Professor of History at Plymouth State University where she specializes in modern world history and the history of India. Dr. Howarth has taught world history at the college level since 1999 and was, for nearly a decade, a research fellow at Northeastern’s World History Center, where she assisted in the research, design and creation of professional development programs for high school world history teachers, hosted seminars by top world historical scholars, and produced multi-media publications (1995-2004). [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What geographic factors helped Britain industrialize first?What factors held back early industrialization in China and Japan?What social factors helped Britain industrialize first?How might the institution of slavery have helped cause industrialization?Other than plantations, what global advantages did Britain have? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The author concludes that the reasons for Britain’s industrialization were both local and global. But if you had to choose one scale as the explanation for Britain’s early industrialization, which would you choose? Which frame supports your choice the best: communities, networks, or production and distribution? Which frame challenges your choice? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Scale of the Industrial Revolution Trevor Getz Where did the Industrial Revolution begin? This may sound like something we should have figured out a long time ago, but there are still big debates about how to answer this question, and these debates tell us a lot about both history and the present. Origin stories Historians argue a lot about the Industrial Revolution. That's because it matters a great deal. Industrialization changed a lot about the world—sometimes quickly, sometimes gradually. Production and distribution methods are some of the most obvious examples, but it was more than that. Society, the way the state worked, how people thought about time and space, the family, the workday, how kids spent their time, how long we lived, what we ate… all of it changed. One of the biggest debates about the Industrial Revolution is about where it all began. This shouldn't really be a debate, right? We should know the answer to this question. Surely, we just have to look for the first steam-engine factories! That part is easy. But two big questions about the Industrial Revolution's birthplace remain. The first is the "scale" of the "where" industrialization actually happened first. If we wanted to study that first industrial change, would we be looking at one city? At one country? At a continent? The second question is where would we look to find the reasons that industrialization happened there. Would those reasons be local or would they be global? Let's examine these two questions, the first one briefly, and the second one in greater detail. Early industrial sites in Great Britain. By WHP, CC BY-NC 4.0. The scale of the first industrialization While it is technically an abstract concept, industrialization is, in many ways, visible to the eye. We can see it. We can see the first steam-powered machines that did the work people and animals had been doing. We can see James Watt's steam engine and the breakthrough device that it powered, Richard Arkwright's machine for spinning thread. We can see the first steam-powered factories, like the Coalbrookdale and Wilkinson's iron works, and the Lancashire textile works. We can see the first steam locomotive and railroads in the cities of Leeds and Swansea. And the thing is, all of these happened in the small island state of Great Britain, mostly over the course of the eighteenth century. Soon after, similar changes happened elsewhere, especially across the Atlantic Ocean in North America (the British North American colonies, later the United States) and in other parts of Europe. Thus, historians have sometimes argued that the Industrial Revolution started in Europe or in the North Atlantic. In some cases, these arguments were really being used to support bigger points that people wanted to prove. Some European scholars argued for European superiority, and US scholars, in particular, wanted to suggest that the United States had a part to play in this important innovation. But in general, most historians now agree that Great Britain was the place where the Industrial Revolution began. Local causes of the first industrialization Even if most historians agree on the location of the first industrialization, they frequently disagree about where to look for explanations for why it happened first in Britain. There are many different arguments in this debate, but we will focus on two. First, some scholars argue the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because of local factors. But others respond that Britain benefited from its particular place in global networks. Let's begin with the argument that it was Britain's unique local conditions that caused it to industrialize first, starting with the island nation's geography and environment. As an island, Britain was easy to defend (at least in the modern era) and relatively peaceful. It was also pretty flat, making it easy to transport goods and to build canals and railroads. These things are essential for successful industrialization. Canals and railroads were needed for moving coal from the various places it was found to the cities and factories where it was used as fuel. Plus, Britain's land was lucky to have a whole lot of coal available. Contrast these conditions to Japan, another island but one with lots of mountains, and the vast area of China, where the coal they had was impractically far from cities and places where factories were likely to be built. Britain also had a favorable demographic situation. The British population was expanding rapidly in the eighteenth century, as death rates fell and birth rates rose. This meant there were lots of available workers for factories, once those were built. Why? Partly because the agricultural land, where most people had lived as farmers until this period, was being bought up by merchants. They were raising sheep in order to use their wool to produce cloth to sell to this growing population. We call this process "enclosure," and it was happening faster in Britain than in other parts of the world, even mainland Europe. You might be asking, but with so many people switching to factory work, how were they still growing enough food? This was a result of the agricultural revolution that occurred before the birth of modern factories. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, advances in farming brought improved tools like better plows, new methods like crop rotation, and other innovations that made it possible to grow a lot more food using less labor. This happened in Britain earlier and faster than in many other parts of the world. A big difference between being a farmer who is home all the time and working in a factory all day is that you no longer had time to make your own stuff—clothes, furniture, etc. Now you had to buy stuff that was made in—you guessed it—factories. People needed more goods than hand-working could produce, and that really drove industrialization. But factory workers' demand for stuff was nothing compared to the demand of a growing middle class, mostly merchants and people who owned some property. They had more money and wanted even more industrial goods. Goods produced in factories were in high demand as the number of consumers grew. Soap, advertised here by a company called Pears which still exists, was especially important because the Industrial Revolution was really grimy! Public domain. Importantly, this middle class of merchants and professionals also had political power. Britain, with its parliamentary system, gave the middle class a representation in parliament. Because these people had property, they passed laws that protected property, making it safer to invest in new factories and other properties in Britain than elsewhere. Bottom line: laws and government now favored industrialization. These men and women also had money to invest in innovation, and they funded many of the inventors and tinkerers who created the machines that cranked up industrialization. Global causes of the first industrialization All of these local factors may have made industrialization more likely in Britain, but some scholars still argue that it was Britain's global presence that helped it to industrialize first. Certainly, Britain's big empire helped them a great deal. British merchants and leaders had made a lot of money from the Atlantic slave trade and the plantation system. They could invest that money in inventions and factories. The scale of slave plantations in the Americas may have also inspired factories. Giant sugar plantations in the British Caribbean, in particular, had gang labor systems and giant machines much like the factories that came later in Britain. Docks built in London to handle trade from the colonies, eighteenth century. Notice how flat it is. By SMU Central University Libraries, public domain. The colonies were also vital for feeding materials to British industry and food to the British people. Would the Industrial Revolution have happened without lumber and cotton from North America and wool from Australia? Would the country have been able to feed workers without the calories from Caribbean sugar, American beef, and North Atlantic cod? Even before industrialization, the agricultural revolution had been partly the result of observing how people grew things in other parts of the world and adopting new crops from the Americas such as potatoes and corn. Finally, trade drove British production. By the early nineteenth century Britain was probably the world's greatest trading power, with a large navy to protect its massive trading fleet. British textile exports, in particular, helped to drive the growth of industry. Along with factories producing exports, British ports expanded rapidly in Liverpool, London, Glasgow, Bristol and elsewhere. These provided jobs and drove the expansion of railways bringing goods to port. Of course, each of these theories—whether focused on global or on local causes of industrialization—has its critics. As often happens in debates like this, the answer is a combination of these factors. But they help us to see that viewing a major historical event at only one scale can lead us to false conclusions. Looking at it from two or more scales can help us to develop a more complex, and likely more accurate, understanding of what really happened. Author bio Trevor Getz is a professor of African and world history at San Francisco State University. He has been the author or editor of 11 books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and has coproduced several prize-winning documentaries. Trevor is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What evidence does the author give to argue that the Industrial Revolution was dehumanizing and degrading for people in Britain?What were some positive changes brought by industrialization? Who benefited?Why did British manufacturers move their sugar plantations to the Indian Ocean?How did the Industrial Revolution change southern Russia, Argentina, and California?How was the Welsh copper industry tied to the sugar and wheat industries around the world? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Think back to the first article you read in this unit on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. Using the networks frame, how does this Global Transformations article change or complicate your opinion on the global vs. local explanations for Britain’s head start in the Industrial Revolution?The other articles in this lesson emphasize the importance of coal in the Industrial Revolution. But this article really only mentions coal twice. Do you think that coal is the most important commodity of the Industrial Revolution? What is the most important commodity in your life today? How much do you think you still rely on coal? On steam power? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Global Transformations of the Industrial Revolution By Bennett Sherry The Industrial Revolution transformed life in Britain. But the transformation of the British economy had consequences for people in every corner of the world. Industrial connections Though the Industrial Revolution started in Britain's factories, its innovations were entangled globally. We often think of coal, steam engines, cheap cotton clothes, steel, and agricultural advances as the seeds that grew into the Industrial Revolution. But they were less like separately grown seeds and more like nuts, bolts, and wires. Together, they created connections and links that enabled this massive change in how humans work and live. How did these entanglements shape the lives of people in Britain, and how did these changes ripple around the world? We'll start by examining how industrial production changed British economics, labor, and culture. Then, we'll go global and examine how three industrial commodities changed communities, production, and trade all over the world. It's important to realize that different people in different places experienced the changes of the Industrial Revolution in different ways. Some wealthy and middle-class people in northwestern Europe really benefited, enjoying new wealth and opportunity. For people in Europe's colonies, industrialization brought new and painful exploitation, as European imperialists sought to maximize profits. And for the working poor in industrialized countries like Britain, it was a pretty mixed bag. Working conditions and life expectancy dropped for most people moving to cities in the nineteenth century. The skyline of Manchester, England. By the nineteenth century, Manchester had become the heart of British textile manufacturing. The factories of industrialization transformed the skyline. Manchester from Kersal Moor, by William Wyld, 1852, public domain. Britain’s “dark Satanic mills” We can thank the Industrial Revolution for all shiny new tech, and for cotton underwear, which beats scratchy wool. We can get fresh fruit in winter almost anywhere on Earth. Fun, right? But for the people living through it—especially poor workers—the Industrial Revolution was degrading and dehumanizing. The millions of working poor who migrated to cities found a dismal life of exploitation as wage laborers. The poet William Blake famously referred to the factories of Britain's Industrial Revolution as "these dark Satanic Mills." He was not alone in expressing horror at industrialization. Friedrich Engels, the son of a German businessman, visited England as a young man. What he saw inspired him to write The Condition of the Working Class in England. He concluded that English workers were not treated as human beings. "They were merely toiling machines in the service of the few aristocrats who had guided history down to that time." In other words, though the Industrial Revolution improved conditions for the middle class, it mostly enriched a few at the expense of the many. Magnolia Cotton Mills spinning room, 1911. Public domain. But Engels's analysis wasn't just about economics. The Industrial Revolution destroyed communities and culture. The patterns of rural life were shattered by so many people moving to cities to work in factories. Extended family communities in villages ensured stability. Community and family support provided a safety net. But as rural farmers became urban wage laborers, extended family communities were replaced by nuclear families—often with a single parent (usually the mother). Without the stability of extended family networks, urban families lacked support in times of crisis, meaning poverty and homelessness for many. The disintegration of family networks and the rise of factories endangered children and unmarried women. Early nineteenth-century England had over a million child laborers, many of whom made their way from orphanages to workhouses. Historian Jane Humphries estimates that up to 15 percent of England's industrial workforce were children. Some children were forced to work for no money in exchange for food and a bed. Women's lives changed as industrialization moved production out of the home. In rural England, women spun textiles for use at home and for sale at market. Women also worked in agriculture and domestic service. The Industrial Revolution didn't really change the work women did, just where they did it. One of the few opportunities for women to improve their financial status was to work in factories, often in textile production. Married women often left the workforce, either because their husbands demanded it or because they had few prospects of rewarding work outside factories. Social mobility Despite its new burdens, the Industrial Revolution opened up new horizons for new people. Factory life was brutal, but people had their reasons for abandoning their farms and moving to the city. For some people, urban wage labor provided a chance at social mobility and financial freedom. The Industrial Revolution made some social progress precisely because of the misery it produced. Britain became the wealthiest nation on Earth. Soon, British workers, politicians, and writers started looking around and wondering why—in the world's richest country—so many people lived and worked in such poor conditions. These were the seeds of the reform movements that pushed children out of factories and into public education. Reformers fought for a minimum wage, safe working conditions, and an eight-hour work day, among other causes. However, these reforms often did not spread to the colonized world, where Britain was putting lots of people to work extracting raw materials. A child laborer in a textile mill, New England, 1910. Image by Lewis W. Hine via the Metropolitan Museum of New York. Processed and colorized by Kelly Short. Public domain. Industrialized sugar comes home Production and profit in one part of the world relied on extraction and exploitation in another. To understand this, let's consider the impact of the Industrial Revolution on three global commodities: sugar, wheat, and copper. You've read about how Europeans brought sugarcane to the Caribbean from Southeast Asia. They forced enslaved people to harvest and refine that sugar. The world got addicted to the sweet stuff and demanded more. Then, at the start of the nineteenth century, the British government outlawed the slave trade, and enforced that law with gunboats roaming the Atlantic on the lookout for slavers. This meant that sugar plantations—which relied on forced labor—became less profitable. In response, European colonizers and financiers took their business to Southeast Asia, where sugar got its start. The Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia) were especially productive. The Dutch forced colonized peoples to turn farms toward sugar production. The Dutch built sugar factories on an industrial scale. Farmers became wage laborers, and farms became sugar factories. Forcing people in the Indian Ocean to grow sugar didn't just hurt those people; it also devastated Caribbean societies that relied on sugar. Enslaved people in some Caribbean islands may have been freed, but they still needed cash crops like sugar to sell on the global market. The rise of industrial sugar production in the Indian Ocean drove prices down and devastated Caribbean economies. Wheat-fueled industrialization Historian Thomas Finger argues that wheat—as much as coal—powered England's factories. Coal fed the machines, but wheat fed the workers. Global wheat production was revolutionized in the nineteenth century to feed English wage laborers. The Port of Odessa, Russia, 1890. From the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division. Public domain. In the early nineteenth century, bread prices soared. This created unrest in Britain's cities, where a bunch of working-class people now lived and depended on cheap bread. If they wanted to keep factories open, the British needed cheap bread. Their efforts to import more wheat transformed wheat-producing regions around the world, particularly in Russia, Argentina, and California. British capitalists funded railroads in southern Russia near the Black Sea. This made it easier to get Russian wheat to British ships in the port of Odessa. British demand for cheap wheat transformed this part of Russia into one of the world's major wheat producers. Russian peasant farmers were connected to English wage laborers by hundreds of miles of rail tracks. In Argentina, British financiers funded new railroads and ports, transforming subsistence farms into industrial wheat farms. In California, nearly all wheat exports made the 17,000-mile sea voyage from San Francisco to Liverpool, England. This lucrative exchange (and the British financing that came with it) changed California's landscape. Gold miners became wheat farmers and vast stretches of inner California became wheat fields. Copper connects the world to Wales For thousands of years, humans smelted metal ore near where it was mined. The historians Chris Evans and Olivia Saunders explain that industrialization changed that. The city of Swansea, in Wales, was a center of British copper smelting. It had always gotten its copper from nearby mines. Around 1830, steamships made it possible for Swansea to import copper ore from the Caribbean, South America, Australasia, southern Africa, Algeria, the United States, and Canada. This tiny corner of Wales became the center of a global copper network that touched every continent. Bristol company copper works near Swansea, 1811. Public domain. By the mid-nineteenth century, Swansea produced 50 percent of the world's copper. Its copper network included enslaved Africans, Indigenous Americans, Chinese indentured laborers, British and Indian financiers, and sailors from all over the world. They were all connected to satisfy Britain's demand for this orangish metal. Copper also connected with the wheat and sugar industries. The steam engines that moved sugar and wheat around the world relied on copper components. Copper vats were essential to sugar refining. The demand for copper transformed Swansea into a fouled landscape reeking of sulfur and choked with smoke from copper furnaces. An old copper vat in an abandoned sugar mill in the British Virgin Islands. Public domain. Conclusion Each of these three industries—sugar, wheat, and copper—depended on British steam engines, financial systems, and wage laborers. In each case—from British children forced to work in factories, to the colonial subjects forced to farm sugar, to the peasant farmers of southern Russia, to the thousands of forced and free laborers who smelted copper—the global connections forged by the Industrial Revolution restructured local communities, trade networks, and the lives of workers. Author bio Bennett Sherry holds a PhD in History from the University of Pittsburgh and has undergraduate teaching experience in world history, human rights, and the Middle East at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maine at Augusta. Additionally, he is a Research Associate at Pitt's World History Center. Bennett writes about refugees and international organizations in the twentieth century. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What is the usual story of the Scientific Revolution?How does the author challenge the usual story of the Scientific Revolution?Who participated in the Scientific Revolution?What were some negative social effects of the Scientific Revolution?Does the author think the Scientific Revolution caused the Industrial Revolution? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: You just read an article about scale and the Industrial Revolution. In that article, the author questioned whether the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because of local or global factors. What do you think explains the emergence of the Scientific Revolution in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? Was this the result of local or global processes?Using the networks frame, explain why the Scientific Revolution happened in Europe and how it might have led to the Industrial Revolution. Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Scientific Revolution Photo of a manuscript written in Arabic that uses different colored circles to show the positioning of Jupiter and Venus in reference to the sun and moon at different points in time. By Eman M. Elshaikh The familiar story of the Scientific Revolution runs from Copernicus to Newton, but the full story extends far beyond Europe, beyond men, and beyond the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The universe doesn't revolve around you. And by you, we mean your planet. That's common knowledge now, but we used to think Earth was the center of the universe, and that the universe was made up of simple elements like earth, water, air and fire. Then we had the Scientific Revolution and boom, there are 118 elements, penicillin, a moon landing, and app-based scooters on every street. Or that's the usual story, anyway. The Scientific Revolution is often portrayed as a frenzy of amazing discoveries by brilliant men in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They are bookended on one end by Copernicus (1473-1543 CE) and Newton (1643-1727 CE) on the other. And these smart guys did more than think up good ideas—they are said to have revolutionized our thinking and our world. Copernicus, for example, put the sun at the center of the cosmos, and Newton transformed how we think about motion, force and gravity. He was inspired, the story goes, by an apple falling on his head. But wait a minute. Is that really how it happened? Was the Scientific Revolution a parade of great male, European scientists? Was it as revolutionary as the familiar historical narratives describe? And what effects did it have on the world? Was it revolutionary? OK, it was revolutionary. Kind of. There were many continuities with earlier historical periods. We're sometimes told that the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution emerged out of the mucky medieval "Dark Ages," when we've been told ignorance prevailed. But women and men did plenty of intellectual and scientific stuff during the medieval period, laying the groundwork for the Scientific Revolution. For that matter, humans have always experimented and calculated—the hallmarks of the Scientific Revolution. Archaeologists have even found evidence of astronomical observations from the Neolithic period. So while experimentation and mathematical models took on a new form during the Scientific Revolution, they were not revolutionary practices. Individual scientific pursuits may have had their own revolutions, but most of the change was slow and fragmented. Throughout these two centuries, people maintained many of the same ideas, and religion continued to influence scientific thinking. But what really made the Scientific Revolution so revolutionary was the scale of it. People had been experimenting and sharing ideas here and there for millennia, and now it was happening at a much larger, unprecedented scale. Technologies like the printing press and long-distance navigational tools helped create massive networks, where ideas could collide and cross-pollinate. There was simply more information, and it was being absorbed and evaluated by an even larger community. Illuminated manuscript depicting the eight celestial spheres believed to exist by French scholar, Nicole Oresme. Each sphere is drawn in the shape of an arc, with the sun and earth depicted above and below. A page from Nicole Oresme's 1377 treatise showing the celestial spheres. Nicole Oresme, a medieval French scholar, explored whether the Earth or the Sun moved in his philosophical investigations. Public domain. Illuminated manuscript depicting the eight celestial spheres believed to exist by French scholar, Nicole Oresme. Each sphere is drawn in the shape of an arc, with the sun and earth depicted above and below. A page from Nicole Oresme's 1377 treatise showing the celestial spheres. Nicole Oresme, a medieval French scholar, explored whether the Earth or the Sun moved in his philosophical investigations. Public domain. Was it European? So far, we've mentioned only European scholars, and the Scientific Revolution has traditionally been described as a European affair. More recently, however, historians question that narrative by looking for the global story. It turns out gravity, starry skies and insects are observable in all parts of the world. The first thing to remember is that those so-called "Dark Ages" were pretty bright outside of Europe. (In fact, they weren't that dark inside of Europe either.) A lively intellectual life in both the Islamic world and China suggests, as many scholars note, direct and indirect global links to the Scientific Revolution. Even the Greek sources that inspired modern science and reason had to travel through the Islamic world to get back to Europe. Scholars in cities like Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad took on massive projects to translate ancient sources from Greek and other languages into Arabic. Paining of seven men sitting on the floor of a library reading and discussing the contents of a book. Each man is wearing a colored robe and traditional headdress. Scholars at an Abbasid library, called the House of Wisdom, in Baghdad. This was one center of the Translation Movement and intellectual activity more broadly. Illustration by Yahya al-Wasiti, 1237. Public domain. Paining of seven men sitting on the floor of a library reading and discussing the contents of a book. Each man is wearing a colored robe and traditional headdress. Scholars at an Abbasid library, called the House of Wisdom, in Baghdad. This was one center of the Translation Movement and intellectual activity more broadly. Illustration by Yahya al-Wasiti, 1237. Public domain. Many Scientific Revolution achievements also have non-European antecedents (things that came before). Indian ideas about mathematical techniques inspired the modern system of mathematical proofs, some research suggests. Others point to Arab and Persian astronomers' contributions to the Copernican system. These are specific examples of knowledge transfer, but others argue there were broader intellectual shifts that paved the way. A heliocentric (sun-centered) model was in the making for a while. Intellectuals across Asia had been questioning an Earth-centric model for centuries, creating space for Copernicus to elaborate his new system. Drawing of a model of our solar system. Lines and circles are used to depict the positioning of the planets on an axis around the sun, with each planet equidistant to both the sun and the planet next to it.A lunar model by the Arab astronomer Ibn al-Shatir, who may have influenced Copernicus’ computations. However, it’s also possible that both men made these calculations independently. Public domain. Drawing of a model of our solar system. Lines and circles are used to depict the positioning of the planets on an axis around the sun, with each planet equidistant to both the sun and the planet next to it. A lunar model by the Arab astronomer Ibn al-Shatir, who may have influenced Copernicus’ computations. However, it’s also possible that both men made these calculations independently. Public domain. But this is a pretty big historical debate. Some scholars still think there was something uniquely European about the Scientific Revolution. Many of these same scholars argue that parallel ideas across cultures don't necessarily mean they reached and influenced European thinkers. Yet, others believe these cross-cultural influences must have existed, given the extensive networks and connections across Afro-Eurasia at the time. Though scholars debate the specifics, there's a general consensus that the European Scientific Revolution relied on earlier knowledge systems both within and outside of Europe. Whose revolution? Even though it had a wide geographic spread—in origins and effects—the Scientific Revolution was generally limited to a small class of people. Most were elite and highly educated. And half the population was excluded, as women weren't usually given access to scientific communities. There are a few significant exceptions, like French mathematician and physicist Émilie du Châtelet. She was famous for her French translation of and commentary on Newton's work. Her commentary led to robust debates about the conservation of energy—the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed—which helped clarify the idea and promote Newton's principles across Europe. But there were other women, usually from the upper to middle classes, who participated as mathematicians, naturalists, astronomers, chemists and scientific illustrators. Then, as science became a formal institution and a profession, it became even harder for women to participate. This had not been the case before, when things like astronomical observation were mostly done in private homes and were open to women. Experimental science was also considered something of a hobby, like cooking—not as rigorous as the "manly" scholastic task of learning ancient Greek and Latin. But when science became regarded as an important, respected profession, women were excluded with the subtly of a sign on a treehouse reading: "No Girls Allowed." In fact, the Royal Society of London's stated purpose was to advance "Masculine Philosophy." Women were routinely denied access to spaces like this, as well as universities. This further cemented ideas about what kind of knowledge was legitimate and who could make it. Women were considered too emotional and unscientific in their thinking to produce objective truth. Despite this severely limited access, women continued to make important contributions to science. Portrait of Emile du Chatelet as she works on some calculations. Three books are laid out in front of her and she is holding a mathematical compass. Portrait of the French mathematician and physicist Émilie du Châtelet working on some calculations. Painted by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. Public domain. Portrait of Emile du Chatelet as she works on some calculations. Three books are laid out in front of her and she is holding a mathematical compass. Portrait of the French mathematician and physicist Émilie du Châtelet working on some calculations. Painted by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. Public domain. Ideas from the Scientific Revolution often reinforced gender and racial hierarchies. They perpetuated the metaphor of nature as a feminine force, chaotic and needing to be conquered and controlled. These led to ideas about how to control the body and reproduction. Racial others1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript were also grouped into the world of disorderly nature—and ideas about race emerged2^22squared. Just as some scientists sought to classify plants and animals, scientists also attempted to classify humans according to skin color, beginning around the time of the Scientific Revolution. This idea was further developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, often to justify imperialism and slavery. Realistic painting of a caterpillar and two butterflies. The caterpillar is shown crawling on a green leaf and one butterfly appears to be laying eggs.Illustration by Maria Sibylla Merian, a Swiss naturalist. Despite her detailed and realistic botanical observations, some considered Merian as simply an illustrator and not a scientist, though her male counterparts were given more prestige and recognition for similar work. Public domain. Realistic painting of a caterpillar and two butterflies. The caterpillar is shown crawling on a green leaf and one butterfly appears to be laying eggs. Illustration by Maria Sibylla Merian, a Swiss naturalist. Despite her detailed and realistic botanical observations, some considered Merian as simply an illustrator and not a scientist, though her male counterparts were given more prestige and recognition for similar work. Public domain. Did it cause the Industrial Revolution? The Scientific Revolution led to the creation of new knowledge systems, social hierarchies, and networks of thinkers. It also affected production and distribution. But it's tricky to draw a direct, causal link. People started to think about nature as machinelike and orderly, and they understood it as something that could be dominated and manipulated. But did that directly cause the Industrial Revolution? On the one hand, the Scientific Revolution was all high theory—not applied to actual devices and machines. The people who invented key industrial technologies weren't slogging through Newton's notoriously difficult texts. Most were not scholars at all, and had been educated only through practical apprenticeships. In fact, in many cases, the inventions came before the theory. For instance, scientists came up with the second law of thermodynamics by studying Watt's engine! But in general, people were better educated, and scientists and industrialists did collaborate. The steam engine would never have taken off were it not for the partnership between the engineer James Watt and industrialist Matthew Boulton. Drawing depicting a machine that has been dissected and broken down into individual parts. Each part is drawn in a detailed manner that shows how it may function when put together as a whole.This apparatus was designed to administer gasses for medical purposes and was another Boulton-Watt collaboration. Public domain. Drawing depicting a machine that has been dissected and broken down into individual parts. Each part is drawn in a detailed manner that shows how it may function when put together as a whole. This apparatus was designed to administer gasses for medical purposes and was another Boulton-Watt collaboration. Public domain. So, as historians, we can't exactly use a scientist's precision in showing the links between the Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution. But that's because production and distribution on the scale of the Industrial Revolution is incredibly complex. The links look less like single threads and more like several overlapping spiderwebs. But without a doubt, the Scientific Revolution made the Industrial Revolution possible. We see how historical events depend on each other and on certain conditions being in place. Medieval European, Muslim, Chinese and Indian scholars created the conditions for the Scientific Revolution by illuminating many ideas. Similarly, the Scientific Revolution lit a path that—centuries later, with the help of a lot of steam and coal power, money, and labor—led to the Industrial Revolution. [Notes] Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What was Matthew Perry’s motivation for sailing four warships into Tokyo Bay?Why was Japan’s economy having trouble in the mid-nineteenth century?Why was there a reform movement (and civil war) after Perry’s arrival?What disadvantages did Japan have as it started to industrialize, and how did the country overcome them? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: You read in the last lesson many different reasons for why Britain was the first to industrialize. Among the reasons given were a large and accessible supply of domestic coal and an existing overseas empire. Japan had neither of these things, but it was the first Asian nation to industrialize. Indeed, it industrialized faster than many European countries. How do you explain this using one of the three frames? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Japan’s Industrial Revolution By Trevor Getz The modernization of Japan can best be expressed in the following haiku: You threaten us / with Industrialization? / We can win that game In 1853, four modern American warships sailed into Tokyo Bay, Japan's great harbor. It was a show of power. Commodore Matthew Perry hoped it would force Japan to change its trading policies and allow American imports to be sold. For the previous two centuries, the Japanese had kept their national economy mostly closed off to foreign trade. But American businesses saw Japan, with its vast population, as a great potential market for their pots, cloth, and other goods they were now rapidly producing for distribution. It may not have been an act of war, but the sudden appearance of warships was certainly a hard sell. Japanese woodblock print of Perry (center) and other high-ranking American seamen. Public Domain. Did Perry's aggressive marketing work? To get an idea of how Japan responded to this forceful display, check out this Japanese poster from 1887. It teaches the Japanese versions of "fashionable English words." Japan in the late nineteenth century was already one of the most literate societies in the world. The fact that they were now learning English reveals how quickly—and intentionally—they prioritized international business. The Tokugawa Shogunate So why now? Before 1868, for about seven centuries, Japan had been under the rule of the Tokugawa shoguns. Japan did have an emperor, but his role was purely ceremonial. Shoguns were military leaders (some would say dictators) whose job was to maintain the stability of society in a certain territory. Japan's rigid class system during this era put peasants at the bottom, farmers and makers (artisans) above them, and then a class of soldiers called samurai above them. The samurai served regional lords, called the daimyo. Stability was important, so the lines between classes were drawn very clearly. However, people were still able to move up and down these classes. In fact, peasants had sometimes managed to become important lords! English-Japanese lesson sheet, a “collection of fashionable English words”, by Kamekichi Tsunajima. By Library of Congress, Public Domain. Japanese society also had a high regard for intellectual pursuits. During this time, the country had a rich intellectual and artistic life, with new art, literature, early forms of comics, and philosophy constantly emerging. Japan had far more people who could read than most of the world's other regions at this time, so literature and poems were highly prized. However, contact with the outside world was strictly regulated. Under the Tokugawa Shoguns, Europeans were only ever legally allowed to trade at one port, Nagasaki. (That's another reason Perry's warships in Tokyo Bay were such a shocking sight.) But Tokugawa Japan had an economic problem. The shoguns relied on taxation from agriculture to keep the country going and to stay in power. Over time, this did not produce enough money for the government, especially since the regional daimyo lords and samurai had to be paid. The only way to keep things going was to raise taxes on the peasants, who as a result were increasingly angry. This weakened the government of Japan at a critical time. When Commodore Perry tried to force Japan to "do business," literally at gunpoint, Japan's leaders naturally feared a future invasion. They could also see how nearby China was being defeated and torn apart by European states that were trying to force the Chinese to buy their products (including opium!). They worried, with good reason, that something similar could happen in Japan if they did not modernize. Hoping to protect Japan from a potential European threat, they began to demand military and industrial reforms in response. But these changes fed into the unrest already bubbling up within Japan from the peasants and samurai classes. The result was a period of political chaos. Many argued against copying the Europeans and Americans, wishing to preserve Japanese culture and way of life. In the mid-1860s, a brief civil war broke out, and the reformers—the ones who wanted modernization in the style of those Western nations—won and took power. They were called the Meiji. Japanese print shows map of harbor area of Nagasaki. By Library of Congress, Public Domain. Meiji The new government quickly tried to inspire popular support for their movement. They took control of the imperial palace and claimed they were merely restoring the Emperor to power, rather than admitting that they were really creating a brand new government. That's why this event is often called the Meiji "Restoration" though it was more of a revolution. This government—not afraid to use propaganda—sponsored new forms of national art and literature that praised the new government, the emperor, and modernization. With the goal of modernizing, they quickly studied European and U.S. political structures. But their innovations weren't a total imitation. Japan's leaders developed a new form of government that mixed Western industrial styles with their own traditions and needs. They built even more schools and changed the curriculum to train people to work in and run factories. They re-organized the army and trained it with new weapons. As Meiji Japan rapidly industrialized and modernized, its rulers looked at the United States and Europe as dangerous competitors. The West's increasing interference in nearby China and elsewhere had Japan on high alert. Some Meiji leaders argued that only by industrializing could Japan protect itself. This idea is often called "defensive modernization." Unfortunately, Japanese industry was at a disadvantage. The island country lacked many raw materials, including that very important burnable rock called coal. The goods they were able to produce faced significant tariffs—import taxes—from already industrialized countries. Determined to increase industry as rapidly as possible, Japan took actions more drastic than anything that had been seen in Europe or the United States. They actively brought business leaders into government. They poured tax money into industrialization. They sought new markets for their goods, and resources to make the goods. Like industrialized societies elsewhere, they created some markets by forcibly taking colonies. Korea, with both a relatively large population (potential consumers) and lots of natural resources, was an early target. Woodblock print depicting “A Glance at the Distinguished Figures of the Meiji Period,“ 1877. By Yamazaki Toshinobu, Public Domain. Japan continues to be an industrial power today, but because of its unique history, its industrial economy remains focused on very large companies, many of which are closely tied to the country's government. As a result, while Japan fits into the wider model of changes to production and distribution brought in by the Industrial Revolution, its particular place within this system is unique. Author bio Trevor Getz is a professor of African and world history at San Francisco State University. He has been the author or editor of 11 books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and has coproduced several prize-winning documentaries. Trevor is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the author, what are some of the elements of a modern life that didn’t exist prior to 1750?What does the article suggest as some reasons for Britain’s early industrialization?Take a look at the photo of the 2012 Olympics. Why do you think Britain would want to celebrate being the birthplace of industrialization?The article argues that industrialization had a variable impact. Does it give any clues about what that might mean? What clues? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: In the last unit, you read about the political revolutions of the Long Nineteenth Century. After watching this video, do you think the Industrial Revolution was a more important revolution than those political transformations? Why or why not? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Unit 3 Overview: Industrialization Painting of an industrialized city with lots smoke billowing from pipes and factories. A couple and their dog can be seen sitting on top of a hill overlooking the city. By Trevor Getz Editor's note: Around the world, people live "industrialized" lives as a result of changes in the Long Nineteenth Century. How did that happen? Does it mean we all have similar experiences? Someone wakes up in the morning. She makes breakfast from food she bought at a grocery store and keeps in boxes in her house. She gets on the train to go to work. She works all day in a factory, making things other people will buy. When her shift is over, she takes the train home. Just modern daily life for many, right? It happens today in Los Angeles, in Kuala Lumpur, in Paris, and in Abidjan. It was also many people's routine in the mid-nineteenth century, during the era of the Industrial Revolution. But there was a time before this lifestyle existed. Prior to 1750, there weren't really any grocery stores. Food was not preserved in boxes and cans. The only "train" was a long line of camels. Hardly anyone worked, for a wage, in a factory. Photo of grocery store shelves packed full of jars, cans, drinks, and other boxed foods.Packaged food and medicine. Brought to you by the Industrial Revolution. You’re welcome? By lyzadanger, CC BY-SA 2.0. Photo of grocery store shelves packed full of jars, cans, drinks, and other boxed foods. Packaged food and medicine. Brought to you by the Industrial Revolution. You’re welcome? By lyzadanger, CC BY-SA 2.0. All of these changes were part of the Industrial Revolution. In this unit, we explore how such an enormous transformation to our way of life came about. We also investigate how people experienced it and what impact it had. Was the impact the same for everyone? Did everyone become a wage worker, taking the train to the factory and buying their food from stores? Did women and men have the same experiences? What was industrialization like in different parts of the world? In rural and in urban areas? For people in different social classes and with different amounts of wealth? Origins of the Industrial Revolution The first part of the unit is the Industrial Revolution's origin story. We often think of this transformation as being driven by Europe. And, it is true, a lot of early industrialization did happen there, especially in Britain, France, Belgium, and their neighbors. Still, to really understand where, how, and why the Industrial Revolution began, we have to think on local and global scales at the same time. Locally, we must start in Great Britain. When the city of London hosted the 2012 Olympics, the theatrical opening ceremonies featured smokestacks suddenly looming darkly over what had been a peaceful green hillside moments before. Whether the ominous scene conveyed pride or perhaps a note of guilt, the message was clear: Industrialism started here. Photo of the inside of a stadium at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. The stadium has been transformed into an industrial town, complete with three large factory pipes, a water wheel, and groups of people wearing traditional clothing from the era. Filmmaker Danny Boyle directed the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics in Great Britain, which told the story of nation’s history with special emphasis on the Industrial Revolution. By The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, CC BY 2.0. Photo of the inside of a stadium at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. The stadium has been transformed into an industrial town, complete with three large factory pipes, a water wheel, and groups of people wearing traditional clothing from the era. Filmmaker Danny Boyle directed the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics in Great Britain, which told the story of nation’s history with special emphasis on the Industrial Revolution. By The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, CC BY 2.0. How that happened, back in the 1700s, may have something to do with the British environment. Most of the British lived on one relatively flat island, with easy transportation between cities and the countryside. The land provided many important industrial resources, namely coal. It also had a large population, which meant many potential factory workers. British scientists were among the earliest adopters of the rapid technological innovation needed for industrialization. They developed the first useful steam engine, called the Watt steam engine. What's more, they linked other inventions to the powerful steam engine, such as the spinning mule and the power loom. The earliest railroads were built in Britain. Their cities grew fastest in the eighteenth century as rural residents moved there looking for work. Many also moved because they were forced. British laws were so pro-industry, land could be taken from those who worked on it, turning British farmers into hourly wage factory workers, whether they wanted it or not. Photo of an old steam locomotive. The machine has eight wheels and a barrel-shaped body with a steam pipe attached to the end. “Puffing Billy,” the world’s oldest surviving steam-powered locomotive. By Morio, CC BY-SA 3.0. Photo of an old steam locomotive. The machine has eight wheels and a barrel-shaped body with a steam pipe attached to the end. “Puffing Billy,” the world’s oldest surviving steam-powered locomotive. By Morio, CC BY-SA 3.0. From this local point of view, you can see some of the reasons Britain industrialized first. The particular shape of Britain as a community mattered a great deal, but so did the larger issues surrounding the changing methods of production and distribution. So let's switch scales and think globally, with particular attention to the expanding and changing global networks. For example, many of the early British innovations came after similar, if less successful, experiments elsewhere. Before the success of the Watt steam engine, Italian, Chinese, and Islamic scientists had built small steam engines of their own. In the same way, workplaces that sort of looked like factories had existed elsewhere—in slave plantations of the British Caribbean, for example, and in flour mills in the northeast United States. British scientists and innovators learned about these experiments in other regions and used them in their own work. Great Britain's empire—itself a vast network—similarly contributed to its industrialization. Laws, beliefs, and financial systems connected people in all parts of the empire, and these connections ended up increasing trade between Britain and its colonies. Farmers in Britain could become factory workers because they could eat food produced elsewhere in the empire. Fish from the Canadian coast, or foods introduced to Britain from elsewhere, like potatoes, fed the increasing number of workers. No wonder fish and chips became a staple British food! British factories also depended on raw materials from their colonies thousands of miles away. In particular, wool from Australia and New Zealand and cotton from India jump-started the British textile industry. The variable impact of the Industrial Revolution But industrialization in Britain was only the beginning of global industry. As we see in the second lesson in this unit, the Industrial Revolution soon went global. The United States, other parts of Europe, Egypt, and Japan all industrialized in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. But industrialization was lumpy. Some regions industrialized successfully, if under different models, as was the case in Japan. But in other places, like Egypt and India, European imperialist policies purposely reversed or prevented full industrialization. This protected British producers and networks from Indian or Egyptian competition. The impact of industrialization varied within communities, as well. For some people, industry was a miracle of productivity and rising wealth. For others, it brought suffering and poverty. It was often more liberating for men than for women, who found themselves confined either to the home or to the grim interior of a factory. What created these differences? How long did they last? How do they endure today? These are all questions that are worth asking as we study the Industrial Revolution. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and World History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why was the arrival of American warships such a shock to the Japanese? What domestic problems did Matthew Perry’s arrival worsen?The Tokugawa Shogunate had kept the emperor as a figurehead and religious symbol. This article is titled the “Meiji Restoration”. Did the restoration actually place the emperor back into power? Use evidence from the article to explain your reasoning.After the restoration, the emperor put many samurai into government and into positions of power. But how was this different from the previous political system?What steps did the reformers take to modernize Japan?Why was Japan’s victory over Russia so important? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The Meiji Restoration made possible a huge transformation in Japan and East Asian production and distribution. It made Japan an economic power on par with many European nations. What effect did this change have on Japanese communities? Use the communities frame to consider what elements of Japanese society became more like European communities and which did not. Why do you think some elements changed in this direction, and others didn’t?Think back to Unit 2, in which we examined all kinds of political revolutions. The Meiji Restoration revolutionized production and distribution in Japan. But was it a political revolution? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Meiji Restoration Painting of US military forces carrying American flags lined up outside the entrance to a Japanese city. By Dennis RM Campbell The arrival of American warships in 1853 destabilized Japan's political system and launched a transformation that made Japan into a major world power in less than 25 years. Japan before the Meiji restoration In 1839 and 1856 Asian nations were shocked by Britain's crushing victories over China in the two Opium Wars. Industrialization—it was now pretty clear—gave massive advantages to European nations, including more money and better weapons. In Asia, China had been the dominant power and richest economy. But the British navy, using new artillery and gunboats, easily defeated China's much larger military. These wars demonstrated that European technology had far outpaced China's. Across the East China Sea, the Japanese were determined not to fall behind the Europeans the way China had. The result was the 1868 political transformation known as the Meiji Restoration. Drawing from both Western models and Japanese traditions, the Meiji Restoration allowed Japan to develop into a modern industrial nation-state that rivaled European nations in both military and economic power. Photo of Japan’s last shogun, Yoshinobu Tokugawa. Tokugawa is photographed wearing a black suit and overcoat and is clutching a bag in his left hand. Monochrome photograph of Yoshinobu Tokugawa, the last shogun of Japan. Public domain. Photo of Japan’s last shogun, Yoshinobu Tokugawa. Tokugawa is photographed wearing a black suit and overcoat and is clutching a bag in his left hand. Monochrome photograph of Yoshinobu Tokugawa, the last shogun of Japan. Public domain. By the nineteenth century, an emperor had reigned in Japan for around 1,500 years. But from 1185 to 1868, the actual emperor held very little power. It was the shogunate (government run by a shogun) that dominated Japanese politics. The shogun was a military leader who held power as a hereditary dictator. While the emperor reigned as a "god on Earth", he was really just a figurehead with some religious authority. Japan was divided into several different regions controlled by daimyo. Daimyo were feudal lords who controlled their lands with the aid of samurai. The samurai were an educated military class who were granted land in return for military service to a daimyo. The Tokugawa family took control of the shogunate around 1600, bringing some welcome stability after a period of unrest. The Tokugawa shogunate established strong control over local daimyo, and enforced traditional, Confucian policies. This prohibited peasants (around 80% of the population) from working any job other than farming. The Tokugawa were also extremely suspicious of European influence. In 1636, the shogun announced the Act of Seclusion, which made it illegal for Westerners to trade in Japan. (Well, the Dutch were granted a single trading outpost in Nagasaki, but they were treated with suspicion.) Though Japanese merchants could still trade in China and Korea, the Act of Seclusion effectively cut the Japanese off from Europeans. The fall of the Shogunate Japan's isolationist policies worked for over 200 years, but the Tokugawa shoguns couldn't block foreign interference forever. On July 8, 1853, four American naval ships under the command of Commodore Perry anchored in Tokyo harbor as a kind of "shall we trade or shall we fight?" message. Since the Japanese didn't have a navy, they knew they couldn't fight Perry's small squadron. Instead, they opened up negotiations with the Americans. Through Perry, US President Fillmore forced Japan to open its harbors to US trade, breaking the centuries-long prohibition against foreign trade. This opened up Japan to European ideas, but the introduction of foreign money into Japanese markets happened too quickly. It destabilized the economy. Japan had just witnessed the Opium Wars in China—an apparent outcome of doing business with the West—and were now on high alert to avoid a similar conflict. Grainy photo of two large ships anchored off the shore with their masts down. Photograph of one of Commodore Perry’s “Black Ships” that opened up Japanese markets to US trade. Originally published in the book Bakumatsu Meiji Taishō kaiko hachijūnenshi by Yonezō Ōsawa and Tōyō Bunka Kyōkai (Tokyo: 1933-4). Public domain. Grainy photo of two large ships anchored off the shore with their masts down. Photograph of one of Commodore Perry’s “Black Ships” that opened up Japanese markets to US trade. Originally published in the book Bakumatsu Meiji Taishō kaiko hachijūnenshi by Yonezō Ōsawa and Tōyō Bunka Kyōkai (Tokyo: 1933-4). Public domain. The shogun's domestic polices made matters worse and tensions arose as people blamed the shogun for their problems. The shogun appointed many lower-ranking samurai to official government positions. Normally this was a great promotion, but Japanese society had a rigid hierarchy that prevented these men from actually having samurai-level power. Many of these lower-ranking samurai became disillusioned. They already felt like the upper class was abusing them, and now they believed that the Tokugawa shogun was endangering Japanese sovereignty by letting in foreign influence. So they used their loyalty as a weapon. The lower-ranked samurai undermined the shogun by glorifying the emperor. Their slogan was sonnō jōi—"Revere the emperor, Expel the barbarian." These rebellious factions attacked foreigners at Japanese ports, and caused local uprisings against the shogun. The attacks alone could not end the shogunate, but they greatly weakened the shogun's position among the elites. Print of large, three mast ships on the water. An enlarged version of the same ship is depicted on the right in greater detail. Japanese print from 1854 showing a paddlewheel steamer belonging to Commodore Perry’s squadron. Public domain. Print of large, three mast ships on the water. An enlarged version of the same ship is depicted on the right in greater detail. Japanese print from 1854 showing a paddlewheel steamer belonging to Commodore Perry’s squadron. Public domain. The Meiji restoration Samurai leaders from southern regions began to advise the new emperor, Meiji. The emperor was only 14 at the time, and the samurai used their influence over him to politically restructure Japan. They increased pressure on Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last shogun, stressing the shogunate's failure to protect Japanese interests. Yoshinobu stepped down, then soon rebelled against those who had replaced him, only to be even more firmly defeated. The emperor's position as the sovereign leader of Japan had been reasserted… in theory. In reality, the Japanese government was now controlled by the emperor's new samurai advisors. Painting of a Japanese sumo wrestler fighting a foreigner. The foreigner is shown lying on his back with his legs in the air and a pained expression on his face. An 1861 image expressing the “jōi” or “Expel the Barbarians” part of slogan sonnō jōi. Public domain. Painting of a Japanese sumo wrestler fighting a foreigner. The foreigner is shown lying on his back with his legs in the air and a pained expression on his face. An 1861 image expressing the “jōi” or “Expel the Barbarians” part of slogan sonnō jōi. Public domain. Japan becomes a nation-state On April 17, 1868, the emperor announced something called the Charter Oath that all would swear to him. This oath presented the emperor's commitment to transforming Japan into a modern nation-state. The five points of the oath were modelled on the ideals of European nation-states. They included the creation of assemblies, public discussion, and allowing people of all social classes participation in government. The oath also said people could pursue jobs that they wanted, rather than being limited to class-specific traditional occupations. Finally, the new government pledged to openly seek out knowledge all over the world to improve and empower Japan. Photo of Japanese samurai sitting together and looking at a map. Samurai from the Choshu clan, who supported the emperor. Public domain. Photo of Japanese samurai sitting together and looking at a map. Samurai from the Choshu clan, who supported the emperor. Public domain. The emperor appointed many samurai to roles in government and education. But that meant these samurai now worked for the state, not for individual daimyo. Slowly, over the next two decades, the emperor and his government stripped the samurai class of many traditional privileges, like stipends (bonus payment) and the right to carry swords. Though some resisted, the samurai went from the military and political backbone of a divided country to just another privileged and wealthy class in the centralized Japanese nation-state. Military reforms So it was the Meiji Restoration that made Japan a nation-state. During the era of the shogunate, each region had its own military, controlled by samurai loyal to their daimyo. Under the Meiji emperor, these regional armies were replaced by a national army, and all male citizens were required to serve in the military. The new government embraced new ideas and technologies brought to Japan by Western merchants and diplomats. By adopting industrialism—specifically factories—the Japanese military could now rival European armies. Within two decades, Japanese victories illustrated the success of these military reforms. They set their eyes on expanding into Korea, which was under Chinese control. Japan's victory in the First Sino-Japanese war (1894-1895) forced China out of Korea. However, Japanese control over the Korean peninsula was quickly challenged by European powers, like Russia. Anti-Asian biases in Europe made the Russians believe that they had nothing to fear from Japan, so Russia invaded Korea. But the Japanese military had grown since the Meiji Restoration so the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) ended in victory for Japan. This sent shockwaves through Europe and told the world that European militaries were not invincible. Over the next 15 years, Japan dominated Korea's economy as it exerted military control over the peninsula. After the Russo-Japanese war, Korea officially became part of the Japanese empire. Becoming part of the Japanese empire would benefit Korea in many ways, as Japan focused on modernizing the region, but many Koreans also suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese. Print of Japanese soldiers with swords chasing a group of retreating Chinese troops as they stumble over each other in an attempt to get away. Woodblock print from 1894 showing Japanese soldiers in European-style uniforms (right) chasing retreating Chinese troops (left) during the Sino-Japanese War. Public domain. Print of Japanese soldiers with swords chasing a group of retreating Chinese troops as they stumble over each other in an attempt to get away. Woodblock print from 1894 showing Japanese soldiers in European-style uniforms (right) chasing retreating Chinese troops (left) during the Sino-Japanese War. Public domain. What did the Meiji restoration accomplish? Unlike many of the revolutions in Europe and the Americas during the long nineteenth century, the Meiji restoration was not a liberal, democratic event. The uprising was not led by oppressed masses fighting for more rights. Instead, it was the elites (okay, lower-ranking elites, but still much higher status than most of the population) who forced a change in the existing political organization of Japan. Though the new government adopted Western technologies and instituted reforms based on Western models, Japan didn't become a European-style state. Rather, the reformers used Western ideas to reconfigure and reorganize the government while still holding on to some Japanese traditions. In many ways, Japan became a model for colonized people around the world. They had learned from their enemies' strategies and beaten them at their own game. Painting of two men playing a game of dai shogi. The Japanese man appears calm and confident as he smokes a pipe, while the Russian man appears distressed. Political cartoon about the Russo-Japanese War. A confident Japanese man is shown beating a Russian opponent at the game of dai shogi. Public domain. Painting of two men playing a game of dai shogi. The Japanese man appears calm and confident as he smokes a pipe, while the Russian man appears distressed. Political cartoon about the Russo-Japanese War. A confident Japanese man is shown beating a Russian opponent at the game of dai shogi. Public domain. The Meiji Restoration transformed Japan. The government became centralized around the figure of the emperor, and the political system now allowed people to pursue new opportunities. Japan also underwent rapid industrialization. That meant the Japanese people experienced social changes, including better education and increased rights and opportunities. At the same time, it created new tensions as focus (and money) was concentrated on urban industrialization at the expense of rural farmers. Japan was so committed to keeping pace with Western developments, it quickly became recognized as a world power. Photo of the Japanese Emperor Uchida Kuichi sitting in a chair wearing a long, black robe and white pants. In his hands is a scroll. Photograph by Uchida Kuichi of the Emperor Meiji (1872) in his formal court outfit. Public domain. Photo of the Japanese Emperor Uchida Kuichi sitting in a chair wearing a long, black robe and white pants. In his hands is a scroll. Photograph by Uchida Kuichi of the Emperor Meiji (1872) in his formal court outfit. Public domain. Photo of the Japanese Emperor Uchida Juichi wearing an ornate military uniform and carrying a sword. Photograph by Uchida Kuichi of the Emperor Meiji (1873) in his military outfit. Public domain. Photo of the Japanese Emperor Uchida Juichi wearing an ornate military uniform and carrying a sword. Photograph by Uchida Kuichi of the Emperor Meiji (1873) in his military outfit. Public domain. Author bio Dennis RM Campbell is an associate professor of History at San Francisco State University. He primarily conducts research on esoteric topics in ancient history and writes about ancient language, religions, and societies. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How did industrialization influence migration?How did industrialization drive urbanization?What are some major factors that the author gives to explain international migration?Why does the author say that more Chinese and Indian migrants didn’t move to the Americas? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article gives a lot of economic reasons for why people migrated. In this lesson, you’ve learned a great deal about economic changes in the Long Nineteenth Century. But in the last lesson, you learned about a bunch of political changes that were happening at the same time. What are some political “push” and “pull” factors from the political revolutions that resulted in migration?Is this history of migration in the nineteenth century “usable” in evaluating and thinking about migration today (meaning can you see similarities between migration then and now)? How, or why not? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Industrialization and Migration Drawing of immigrants walking off a boat that has just docked in New York City. By Trevor Getz In the long nineteenth century, people moved from place to place like they never had before. Some of this migration was local; some of it was long distance. Much of it was voluntary. But forced migration continued for more than 100 years after the start of this era. Industrialization and migration The long nineteenth century witnessed a series of massive migrations – larger than had ever been witnessed before. Millions of people were on the move between 1750-1914. These movements helped tie the world together in new ways. Take a look at the chart below. These four rows detail some of the largest migration patterns in this era. Migration from one region to another was happening all over the world during this period. But there were several major migration “bumps” that were bigger and more significant than the everyday migration patterns among regions. OriginDestinationTime frameEstimated number of peopleAfricaAmericas1750-18309,000,000EuropeAmericas1850-191440,000,000India/ChinaSoutheast Asia1860-191438,000,000Russia, China, JapanCentral Asia1870-191426,000,000 Table 1: Largest migration patterns between 1750-1914 What do each of these bumps signify? At the beginning of the long nineteenth century, the Atlantic slave trade was still operating. Millions of enslaved Africans were unwillingly being brought to the Americas. But after 1830, this system began to slow. More and more countries criminalized the slave trade. Migration of Europeans to the Americas picked up just as the Atlantic slaving system was slowing. The population of Europe was surging in the nineteenth century. It would double from 188 million in 1800 to 400 million by 1900. As a result, the continent had trouble sustaining so many people. Many Europeans also lost land to industrialization. Urban workers who had trouble making ends meet1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript in European cities began to seek new opportunities in the Americas. During the same period, another great movement started in Asia. The populations of China and India were also surging. Many citizens of both countries sought new opportunities in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, governments in Russia and China encouraged their populations to settle in Siberia and Central Asia, partly because each country wanted to claim territory in these regions. These major migration patterns hide perhaps the greatest migration of the time. This migration was not from one country or region of the world to another. It was from countryside to city. Look at this list of the world’s largest cities and their population in 1800: Beijing – 1,100,000London – 950,000Canton – 800,000Istanbul – 570,000Paris – 550,000 Now here is the list of world’s largest cities in 1900: London – 6,600,000New York – 4,200,000Paris – 3,300,000Berlin – 2,700,000Chicago – 1,700,000 If you compare the first list to the second, several things are obvious. One is the rise of large cities in the Americas and Europe. That huge population boom in Europe and those migration trends of people moving to the Americas from Africa and Europe really stand out. The second big trend is the immense growth of cities. Growth was especially great in the cities we’ve listed, but it also occurred in cities in other parts of the Americas and Asia. London is seven times as large in 1900 as it was in 1800. Paris grew six times as large over 100 years. This proved that movement from rural to urban areas was clearly significant in this period. Patterns of migration: Push and pull Why did people move from rural areas to urban areas? Why did they move from one region to another, over the course of the long nineteenth century? Historians often focus on what they call “push” and “pull” factors to understand migration. “Push” factors are things that make people want to leave (or force them to leave) their original area. “Pull” factors bring people to a new area. Over the course of the long nineteenth century, many push and pull factors helped to create the vast migrations we see in these statistics. Push factors often included problems or a lack of opportunity in the homeland. For example, nineteenth-century Europe was a very difficult place for many people to live. Many farming or peasant families were kicked off their land for industrial farming and herding. They moved to cities, where populations were growing rapidly, hoping for work in the new factories. But often there wasn’t enough work to go around. This was mainly due to the fact that factories were efficient precisely because they replaced people with machines. A number of factors “pushed” specific European populations to the Americas. Some migrants fled wars. For example, a long conflict in the Balkans pushed millions of people to leave. These refugees then fled to other parts of Europe, the Ottoman Empire, and the Americas in the 1900s. Religious persecution also drove immigrants. The Jewish population of Russia and Eastern Europe, for example, fled persecution in the millions in the late nineteenth century. Hunger was also an important push factor. The nineteenth century was an age of famines. This chart illustrates some of the largest famines: PlaceYearMortality estimateIreland1845-18491.9 – 2.2 millionNorth Africa1870s2.2 – 3.5 millionIndia1866-18796.1 – 10.3 millionIndia1896-19006.1 – 19 millionChina1876-18799.5 – 20 millionBrazil1876-18790.5 – 2 million Table 2: Largest famines These famines were not just a result of poor years when few crops grew in an area. They were actually linked to a combination of global climate changes and poor policies. Many of these regions were colonies, and imperial rulers were notoriously bad at making sure subject populations were fed. In fact, they often continued to export food from these regions, hoping to sell it for more money elsewhere, rather than feed those in the colonies. Colonialism also helped to create a huge “pull” factor during this period. The demand for labor in the British Empire, in particular was immense. Colonial governments planned huge projects to pull out resources – especially railroads – and private companies needed workers for mines and plantations. Often, the work was terrible – hard, dangerous, and poorly-paid. Many of these were in areas that didn’t have a lot of people, or were the local populations resisted working under these conditions. The British ruled India during this era. They found that they could cheaply employ their Indian subjects and draw them to these areas, especially during periods of famine. In China, poverty and sometimes famines also created “push” factors for laborers. Big corporations then took advantage and created a “pull” factor. They would offer to pay to relocate people to Southeast Asia and elsewhere as cheap laborers. In fact, the kind of contracts they created for these laborers looked very much like slavery. They usually took the form of “indentures” in which workers had few rights and agreed to work for a long time for little pay. During the early years of this period, slavery itself was a potent “pull” factor. Until the 1820s, the enslavement of Africans resulted in millions of people being forcibly relocated to the Americas. Most European countries technically abolished this system in the early nineteenth century. But in reality it persisted into later years. Ship-owners secretly took captives from Africa as late as the 1860s. They were brought to work on sugar plantations in Brazil and Cuba. Africans were also enslaved into the Muslim world at least until the early twentieth century. Also, it wasn’t just Africans who were enslaved. Although the number of people enslaved was much less, slavery persisted in many parts of the world through the end of this era. Aside from enslaved and indentured migrants, prisoners also formed another large group of forced migrants in this era. Britain sent thousands of Irish and British convicts to Australia. This included both alleged criminals and people who owed money. The French sent convicts to penal colonies in Latin America. Japan sent its convicts to the island of Hokkaido, and Russia shipped tens of thousands of prisoners to Siberia. Of course, the biggest “pull” factor was opportunity. In the nineteenth century, some regions seemed to provide much opportunity. This pulled lots of voluntary migrants. Europeans, for example, saw the United States, Canada, and Latin America as having a lot of opportunity. They believed they could move to these places, find jobs, and own land. Millions of Europeans moved voluntarily to these regions. They hoped to work in factories or to get a piece of land to farm. Limits If you look at the charts at the beginning of this article, some patterns are obvious. Others are not, largely because they are missing patterns. Yet missing patterns can tell us a lot too. For example, why was emigration2^22squared from Asia to the Americas not larger in this period? We know there were big “push” factors for people to leave China and India. We also know that there was a huge opportunity “pull” factor in the Americas. So why weren’t there more people leaving Asia and going to the Americas? This missing pattern highlights an important emigration factor. Simply put, the governments of most American countries restricted Asian immigration. They passed laws, especially from the 1880s onward, that stopped people from some Asian countries from migrating. These laws, or “exclusion acts”, were based on racist ideas that Asians were immoral, alien, or would steal jobs from white Americans. Such laws were powerful factors that limited immigration in this era from some regions to others. Anti-Chinese propaganda depicting the head of a Chinese man with tentacles extending from his neck. The tentacles are shown wrapped around flailing white men and women.Australian Anti-Chinese immigrant cartoon, 1886. Propaganda like this helped to stir up racist anti-Chinese sentiment in the Americas and Australia during this period. By May, Phillip, Public Domain. Anti-Chinese propaganda depicting the head of a Chinese man with tentacles extending from his neck. The tentacles are shown wrapped around flailing white men and women. Australian Anti-Chinese immigrant cartoon, 1886. Propaganda like this helped to stir up racist anti-Chinese sentiment in the Americas and Australia during this period. By May, Phillip, Public Domain. [Notes] Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What was the initial reason that people in Britain started mining coal?How did the fact that wet conditions made British coal hard to get to turn into an advantage for Britain?Why did the Industrial Revolution spread out of Britain?What were some consequences of the Industrial Revolution? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The article about scale and the Industrial Revolution listed British population increases as a reason for early British industrialization. In this article, however, the author says that China’s large, rapidly growing population was a reason that China did not industrialize early. Do you think the authors disagree? If so, whom do you agree with? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. The Industrial Revolution By Cynthia Stokes-Brown Abundant fossil fuels like coal led to innovative machines, like engines. These inventions launched an era of accelerated change that continues to transform human society. The transformation of the world Try to imagine your life without any machines working for you. Make a list of the machines in your house. You might be surprised how many there are. Now imagine young people who grew up before machines. How did they move from place to place? How did they communicate? What foods did they eat? At one time, human communities provided most of their own energy. They ate plants and animals to fuel their bodies, burned wood for warmth and cooking, and used domestic animals for help with chores. Windmills and waterwheels captured some extra energy, but little could be saved. All life depended on the energy the Sun sent to the Earth. However, in the 1700s, everything started to change with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Now, people found an extra source of energy that could work for them. That source was fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas. These fuels had been forming from the remains of plants and animals from much earlier geologic times. When they were burned, they released energy, originally from the Sun, that had been stored underground for hundreds of millions of years. Take coal, for example. This useful fuel was formed when huge trees from the Carboniferous period (345 to 280 million years ago) fell and were covered with water, so that oxygen and bacteria could not decay them. As other materials covered them over time, they were compressed into dark, carbonic, burnable rock. Oil and gas were made from a similar recipe, formed over 100 million years ago from tiny animal skeletons and plant matter that fell to the bottom of seas or were buried in sediment. The weight of water and soil compressed this organic matter until it turned into the oil and gas that we now use for energy. While coal, oil, and gas are relatively common on Earth, they are not evenly distributed. Some places have much more than others because of the diverse ecosystems that existed long ago. This uneven distribution of suddenly valuable resources, essential for industrialization, led to inequalities around the world that are still felt today. Early steam engines The story of the Industrial Revolution begins on the small island of Great Britain. By the early eighteenth century, people there had cut down most of their trees either to build houses and ships or to burn for heating and cooking. So now they needed something else to burn. They knew those hunks of black stone near the surface of the Earth were flammable, so they dug deeper to see how much there was. These coal mines were not an instant success. They were so deep in the Earth that they would fill with water as you were digging. Miners tried using horses to pull up buckets of water, but that was too slow. In 1712, Englishman Thomas Newcomen created a coal-powered steam engine capable of pumping water from the mines. More than fifty years later, James Watt, a Scottish instrument maker, designed a better version. This steam engine— which would have a long career powering trains, ships and other things—was first used to efficiently pump water out of coal mines. After his patent ran out in 1800, others further improved on his engine. By 1900, engines burned 10 times more efficiently than they had a hundred years before. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, British colonies in North America were producing lots of cotton. Machines, which were usually powered by hardworking people in their homes but also by waterwheels and windmills situated near rivers, were used to spin the cotton thread on spindles (rods) and to weave it into cloth on looms. Attaching a steam engine to these machines was like trading a bicycle for a jumbo jet. The work went much, much faster. One steam engine could power many spindles and looms. But you can't park a jumbo jet in a bike rack. Now people had to leave their homes for work because the steam engines were so large and expensive. As a result, textile work shifted from a primarily home-based occupation to factories. Engraving of Boulton and Watt’s steam engine, 1781, from Robert Henry Thurston’s A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine. New York: D. Appleton, 1878, p. 104. By Robert Henry Thurston, Public Domain. Early in the nineteenth century, the British also invented steam locomotives and steamships, which revolutionized travel. In 1851, they held the first world's fair where they exhibited telegraphs, sewing machines, revolvers, reaping machines, and steam hammers to demonstrate that they were the world's leading manufacturer of machinery. By this time, the characteristics of industrial society—smoke rising from factories, bigger cities and denser populations, railroads—loomed large in many parts of Britain. Why Britain? Britain wasn't the only place that had deposits of coal. So why didn't the Industrial Revolution begin somewhere else that had coal, like China? Did it start in isolation in Britain, or were there global forces at work that shaped it? Did geography or cultural institutions matter more? Historians have vigorously investigated these questions. Possible reasons why industrialization began in Britain include: Shortage of wood and an abundance of convenient coal depositsBritain had “wet coal”—mines flooded and they had to devise a way to get the water out of the mines, which led to the invention of the steam engineElites who were interested in business, a limited monarchyA capitalist system; limited government involvementGovernment support for business projects and a strong navy to protect shipsCheap cotton produced by Africans enslaved in North AmericaProfits from the transatlantic slave trade provided Britain with capital to invest in industrialization Possible reasons why industrialization did not begin in China include: Location of China's coal—the north—while economic activity was centered in the southChina had “dry coal” that was deeper in the ground than Britain’s “wet coal”A large, rapidly growing population, allowing for human labor instead of machinesConfucian ideals that valued stability and discouraged experimentation and changeLack of Chinese government support for sea explorations, thinking its empire seemed large enough to provide everything neededChina's focus on defending itself from nomadic attacks from the north and west Global forces influencing the development of industrialization in Britain include: Britain's location on the Atlantic OceanBritish colonies in North America, which provided land, labor, and marketsSilver from the Americas, used in trade with ChinaSocial and ideological conditions in Britain, and new thoughts about the economy, that encouraged an entrepreneurial spirit Of course, that burnable rock we call coal wasn't the only fossil fuel mentioned earlier. What roles did oil and natural gas play while coal was powering the Industrial Revolution? They had been discovered long before and were already in use, but mostly just for lamps and other light sources. It wasn't until the mid-twentieth century with the invention of the internal combustion engine that oil caught up—and surpassed—coal in use. And if you've ever been in a car that's not electric, you've used a combustion engine for transportation. The spread of the Industrial Revolution Britain wanted to keep secret how its machines were made. But visitors soon learned about them and took the techniques back home. Sometimes they smuggled machines out in rowboats while others memorized factory and machine plans. The first countries after Britain to develop factories and railroads were Belgium, Switzerland, France, and the states that became Germany, all between the 1830s and 1850s. Building a national railroad system was an essential part of industrialization, as trains could transport raw materials and coal to factories at an accelerated rate. Children working in a mill in Macon, Georgia, 1909. By Lewis Hine, Public Domain. Industrialization came to the United States in 1789. That was the year Samuel Slater left Britain for Rhode Island, where he set up the first textile factory on U.S. soil. He couldn't bring any notes or plans from Britain, so he had to set up the factory from memory. Once factories were built, railroad construction in America boomed from the 1830s to 1870s. The American Civil War (1861–1865) was the first truly industrial war in that factories mass-produced supplies and weapons for the war effort, troops were transported by rail, and the telegraph was used to send remarkably fast communications. The increasingly urbanized and factory-based North was fighting against the agriculture-based South. After the war, industrialization grew explosively and by 1900, the United States had overtaken Britain in manufacturing, producing 24 percent of the world's output. Four decades before that, both Russia and Japan gave up their feudal systems to compete in the industrializing world. In Japan, the monarchy was flexible enough to survive early industrialization. But in Russia, a rural country, the czar and nobles tried to industrialize the country while keeping a grip on their dominance. You'll read more about industrialization in other regions of the world later in this era and in Era 7. Consequences of the Industrial Revolution As industrialization took off in Europe and the Americas, nations began to use their strong armies and navies to colonize many parts of the world that were not industrialized. The industrialized nations then began exploiting colonies for their natural resources, labor, and potential new markets. This would lead to the age of imperialism. The negative consequences of these activities would be felt for generations. These topics will be covered extensively in the remaining lessons of Era 6. The effects of industrialization on global population are staggering. In 1700, before fossil fuels were in use, the world's population was 670 million. By 2011, it was 6.7 billion, a tenfold increase in only 300 years. In the twentieth century alone, the world's economy grew fourteenfold, per capita income grew almost fourfold, and the use of energy expanded at least thirteenfold. In addition, from 1900 to 2000, urban population growth increased substantially, as more people left rural areas for cities. This kind of growth has never before occurred in human history. Table 1: Percentage of urban population growth, 1600 to 2000 CE Region16001700180020001900World5%5%7%16%47%Western Europe12%13%21%41%75%North America1%2%7%38.5%79%Africa0.5%1.25%3%8.5%39%China7%6%6%7%37% Source: Population data adapted from Goldewijk, K.K., A. Beusen, and P. Janssen. “Long-term dynamic modeling of global population and built-up area in a spatially explicit way: HYDE 3.1.” The Holocene 20, no. 4 (2010): 568. Many people around the world today enjoy the benefits of industrialization. With extra energy flowing through the system, many of us do much less physical labor than earlier generations. Child mortality rates have decreased, as more people are able to feed their children and get medical care. Life expectancy has increased, with the largest gains having occurred after the 1850s. Many people vote and participate in modern states, and these states provide education, social security, and health benefits. Large numbers of people enjoy levels of wealth, health, education, travel, and life expectancy unimagined before industrialization. The benefits of industrialization, however, have come at great cost. For one thing, the rate of change (acceleration) is now so rapid that individuals and social systems struggle to keep up. In addition, the natural resources that industrialization depends on are being undermined. Humans continue to use fossil fuels at rates that exceed the time it takes for these resources to replenish. The burning of these fuels also leads to environmental impacts that will continue to impact the Earth for generations to come. Author bio Cynthia Stokes-Brown was an American educator-historian. Stokes Brown wrote Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present. Using the term big history, coined by David Christian at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, Stokes Brown told the whole story from the Big Bang to the present in simple, non-academic language to convey our common humanity and our connection to every other part of the natural world. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What were Iwasaki Yatar­­ō’s origins?Why did many in Japan want to industrialize in the late nineteenth century?What did Iwasaki Yatar­­ō himself do, and how was he regarded by people in Nagasaki?What do you think is the meaning of the quote from Isawaki’s biographer?How does the artist represent changes in both Japan and Isawaki using art in this biography? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of Iwasaki Yatar­­ō support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about industrialization in Japan? About the impact of industrialization on people and societies more generally? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. TIwasaki Yatarō (Graphic Biography) Writer: Sean Bloch Artist: Liz Clarke A petty samurai by birth, Iwasaki Yatar­­ō seized the opportunities of industrialization to create the Mitsubishi corporation and to help industrialize the city of Nagasaki. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

Innovations and Innovators of the Industrial Revolution By Malcolm F. Purinton The Industrial Revolution was about more than inventions, but we can’t ignore the innovations – and innovators – that changed the world. Introduction The Industrial Revolution was more than just a bunch of technological innovations, of course. Still, one way we can study how it emerged, and how it changed the world, is by looking at some of the major inventions, and inventors, of industrialization. Watt engine James Watt grew up in Scotland and attended the University of Glasgow where he studied instrument making. He worked on many tools including compasses and scales, but his greatest contribution was the refinement of the steam engine. Steam engines, like the Newcomen steam engine, were very inefficient at first. They were mostly only used for pumping water from mines. In 1765, Watt decided to try to improve the engine so it would be more efficient and could be used for other things. He patented his ideas in 1766, but it would take until 1774 to build them. Watt needed skilled ironworkers who could make the parts he needed for his engine to work. He found them by partnering with a manufacturer names Michael Boulton. Over the next fifteen years Watt kept improving and selling Watt Engines, not only to mines for pumping out water, but also to paper mills, ironworks, and cotton mills. The Watt engine was one of the most important contributions to the Industrial Revolution, making it possible for factories and mills to use coal and wood instead of relying on water wheels, horses, or wind. In effect, James Watt’s engine helped fuel the Industrial Revolution. Oh, and you might be wondering why his name is on most the world’s lightbulbs (which he did not invent – keep reading). It’s because the watt, as a unit of power, was named after James Watt for his contributions to science and industry. A technical drawing of Watt’s steam engine. By Digby Dalton, CC BY-SA 3.0. Eli Whitney and the cotton gin Eli Whitney was born and raised in Massachusetts but his invention, the cotton gin, saw its greatest use in the southern part of the United States. Producing cotton was not very lucrative in the late eighteenth century. Even after picking it off the plant, you still had to separate seeds from the cotton fibers by hand. In 1794, Eli Whitney patented a machine that could do that second part much more efficiently. It could process more cotton in one hour than several people could in a full day of work. As a result, planters quickly started growing cotton across the South. Annual Cotton production in the United States went from 73,000 bales in 1800 to 2,136,000 bales in 1850. With the introduction of the cotton gin, growing and cultivating cotton became very profitable. But the expansion of the cotton industry created a demand for more workers for the non-mechanized part of the process – picking the cotton. The number of enslaved people working the fields in the American South increased. Though Whitney’s invention had made processing cotton much more efficient, it led to the demand for more people to plant, cultivate, and harvest the crops. Cotton became so important that it was known as “King Cotton” in the southern states, and the United States became the largest producer in the world. An antique cotton gin similar to the one designed by Eli Whitney. Public domain. Henry Bessemer and steel In 1856, Henry Bessemer took out a patent in England for a new process that would help purify iron to make high quality steel. Prior to this, it was very difficult to make strong steel that would not break. Bessemer developed an inexpensive and rapid process to produce high-quality steel at an industrial scale. The Bessemer process removed all of the impurities in molten iron by blowing oxygen through it. This process, known as oxidation, raises the temperature of the iron so high that it burns off all the impurities, like carbon and phosphorus, while keeping the metal molten. The steel that was created was a double success because it was very high quality and could be produced much faster. By the 1870s, Andrew Carnegie was using the Bessemer process in his steel mills in the United States. This high-quality, mass-produced steel made miles of railroad tracks, girders in skyscrapers, machine parts, farm equipment, and more, more, more. Here we see a model of the furnaces that would be used for the Bessemer process for making high-quality steel. Notice how large they are in comparison to the figure of a man on the left. By Ebaki, CC BY-SA 4.0. Louis Pasteur Louis Pasteur was instrumental in how we think of and treat diseases today. In the late 1850s the French scientist discovered that alcohol was produced by single-celled microorganisms known as yeast. He found that the yeast cells would ingest sugar and convert it into alcohol and carbon dioxide. This meant that fermentation was actually a biological process and not a purely chemical one. Pasteur built on this knowledge. Through experimentation, he learned that by heating substances like milk and beer very quickly he could kill these microorganisms and sterilize the liquids. This process is now called pasteurization and keeps many substances, including milk and beer, from spoiling quickly. This innovation helped to safely feed the growing population of industrial workers. In the 1870s, Pasteur kept up his interest in how microorganisms can affect substances and people, leading him to develop his germ theory of disease. He developed vaccines for several deadly animal diseases, including, anthrax – which had been devastating to local sheep and cattle herds – as well as chicken cholera and rabies. A painting of Louis Pasteur in his laboratory in 1885. Public domain. Thomas Edison – Lights, camera, inventions! Thomas Edison was one of the most influential inventors of his time. His impact is felt even today. His early life in the 1860s was spent working on the telegraph, a new form of long-distance communication. Eventually, he made his way to Boston where he worked at the Western Union office and worked on his own inventions. In 1869 he filed his first patent, which was for an electric voting machine. He was 21. Edison moved to New York City and began inventing improvements to the telegraph and to Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone, eventually developing an automatic telegraph machine. Those experiments led to his invention of the phonograph in 1877. Edison then focused on electric light systems, inventing and marketing a long-lasting incandescent light bulb in 1879. (This is “watt” we hinted at in that first section.) Soon after, in 1882, lower Manhattan had its own electric light system and Edison founded several companies to produce and sell electric lights and light systems. In the late 1880s Edison worked on inventing an early movie camera called a Kinetograph and a viewer called a Kinetoscope. Kinetoscope parlors opened in several American cities during the 1890s, precursors to modern movie theaters. Overall, Edison’s inventions and improvements to technology with over one thousand patents during his lifetime make him one of the most successful and important American inventors in history. Thomas Edison sitting with an early version of his phonograph that could record voices and play them back. Public domain. These inventors, and their inventions, represent just a small selection of the many innovations that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Around them, the work of millions of laborers and changes in the organization of society made their work possible. But even while studying these broader transformations, it is important to also recognize the way scientists and innovators helped to drive industrialization, whether that was their intention or not. Author bio Malcolm F. Purinton is a part-time lecturer of World History and the History of Modern Europe at Northeastern University and Emerson College in Boston, MA. He specializes in Food and Environmental History through the lens of beer and alcohol. [Sources and attribution]

The data exploration article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview – what do we have? This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what this chart is about and the information it contains. Pay attention to: Labels and titles. What is the title? How are the axes labeled? Is anything else on the chart labeled?Data representation. How many variables are there and what are they? What are the scales? What time period does the chart cover? Is the chart interactive?Data source. Where did the data for this chart come from? Do you trust it? Who created the chart? Second read: key ideas – what do we know? In this read, you will pay attention to the information that most helps you understand the chart and the information it is trying to convey. Pay attention to: Claim(s). What can you say about the data? What story does it tell? Can you make any claims about this data? Does it change when you zoom in compared to when you look at the data as a whole?Evidence. What data from the chart supports this story? Does this change if you change the scale or variables?Presentation. How does the way this chart is presented influence how you read it? Has the author selected certain variables or scales that change the conclusions that can be drawn? Is there anything missing from this chart? By the end of the second read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to Charts 1 and 2, when did the global average temperature start to rise most dramatically, and what caused it?Looking at Chart 2, who are the biggest producers of CO2 emissions?According to Chart 2, who produced most of the world’s CO2 emissions before 1900?According to Chart 3, what countries produced the most CO2 emissions during the First and Second World Wars? Are there any major countries that you think produced a lot of emissions but are not represented accurately on this map?Looking at the five possible future scenarios on Chart 4, which do you think is the most likely?Considering the information on Chart 1 and 4, if all countries act immediately and aggressively to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, will the global average temperature decrease by 2100? Third read: making connections – what does this tell us? The third reading is really about why the chart is important and what it can tell us about the past and help us think about the future. Pay attention to: Significance. Why does this matter? Does this impact me, and if so, how? How does it connect what is going on in the world right now? How does it relate to what was happening at the time it was created?Back to the future. How does this data compare to today? Based on what you now know, what are your thoughts on this phenomenon 25 years, 50 years, and 100 years from now? At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Why does this chart matter? What do these charts about average temperature and emissions tell us about the history of human production and distribution? Can data help us change the future?Using these charts, make one prediction about how global average temperature or greenhouse gas emissions will change in your lifetime. What evidence from the charts supports your prediction? What evidence challenges it? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Introduction By Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, adapted by Eman M. Elshaikh It’s getting hot out there, folks. These charts provide an overview of historic changes in average temperature and greenhouse gas emissions— with an eye toward the future. Introduction Lately, there has been a lot of talk about carbon footprints. What people are referring to is carbon dioxide, a gas that contributes to the warming of the Earth’s climate. Your carbon footprint measures the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced from your daily activities: the energy you consume, things you buy, and food you eat. But carbon dioxide is just one of many greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases create the “greenhouse effect,” which warms the Earth’s climate. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, we need these gases—like carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane, and others—to keep the temperature of the planet livable for many organisms—including us. If there were absolutely no greenhouse gases (GHGs), the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about -18 degrees Celsius1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript (This equals about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.) Particularly since the Industrial Revolution, energy production has gone up dramatically. Energy production using fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in GHGs, which has led to global warming. Climate change has a range of possible effects on the environment and on people’s health. It can make extreme weather events, like floods, droughts, storms, and heatwaves more common and intense. It can cause the sea levels to rise, plants to grow differently, and water systems to change.2^22squared In light of this evidence, UN member parties have set a target in the Paris Agreement of limiting average warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. In this data exploration, you’ll get a historical perspective on how CO2 emissions have evolved, how emissions are distributed, and the key factors that both drive these trends and hold the key to limiting climate change. Looking at the data: Long-term global average temperature change To set the scene, let’s look at how the planet has warmed. In Chart 1 we see the global average temperature and how it’s changed since 1850. The red line represents the average annual temperature trend through time. But we can’t be 100 percent precise about these temperatures, so the two light-gray lines show the possible range. In this chart, we see that over the last few decades, global temperatures have risen sharply. Overall, if we look at the total temperature increase since pre-industrial times, this amounts to approximately 1 degree Celsius. The chart also shows that the temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere is higher (around 1.4 degrees Celsius since 1850) than in the Southern Hemisphere (around 0.8 degrees Celsius). This relates to the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has much more land than the Southern Hemisphere—and land heats and cools much more quickly than the ocean. CO2 emissions by region So, we know that temperatures are rising, but what’s causing it? The data shows a relationship between rising temperatures and increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Global emissions have increased from 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 1900 to over 36 billion tons 117 years later. Chart 2 breaks this data down by region. Chart 3 shows a map view of annual emissions in 2018. Future emission scenarios What does the future of our carbon dioxide and GHG emissions look like? In Chart 4, we show five possible future scenarios involving GHG emissions and temperature increases: No climate policies: Projected future emissions if no climate policies were implemented. This would result in an estimated 4.1 to 4.8°C warming by 2100 (relative to pre-industrial temperatures).Current climate policies: Projected warming of 2.8 to 3.2°C by 2100 based on current implemented climate policies.National pledges: If all countries achieve their current targets/pledges set within the Paris Agreement, it’s estimated average warming by 2100 will be 2.5 to 2.8°C. This would exceed the overall target of the Paris Agreement to keep warming “well below 2°C.”2°C consistent: There are a range of emissions pathways that would be compatible with limiting average warming to 2°C by 2100. This would require a significant increase in ambition of the current pledges within the Paris Agreement.1.5°C consistent: There are a range of emissions pathways that would be compatible with limiting average warming to 1.5°C by 2100. However, all would require a very urgent and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. [Notes] Author bios Hannah is Senior Researcher and Head of Research at Our World In Data. She focuses on the long-term development of food supply, agriculture, energy, and environment, and their compatibility with global development. Hannah completed her PhD in GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh. Max is the founder and director of Our World in Data. He began the project in 2011 and for several years was the sole author, until receiving funding for the formation of a team. Max’s research focuses on poverty, global health, and the distribution of incomes. He is also Programme Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford, and Co-executive Director of Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization that publishes and maintains the website and the data tools that make OWID’s work possible. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What steps did Muhammad Ali take to modernize Egypt?European banks loaned lots of money to help Muhammad Ali modernize Egypt. Why was this a bad thing for Egypt?What are the three explanations for this failure?How did some Islamic scholars react to Egypt’s failures? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Which of the three explanations given for the failure of Egypt’s industrialization is most convincing to you? Why?Consider the three explanations the author gives for Egypt’s failure to industrialize. Do any of these apply to the situation in Japan during the Meiji Restoration? If so, why do you think Japan was able to overcome these disadvantages and still industrialize effectively? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Egypt’s Industrial Revolution By Trevor Getz During the nineteenth century, Egypt became a major producer of cotton and embarked on a process of building an industrialized economy. However, Egypt's industrialization ultimately failed, for reasons that are still debated. In the early nineteenth century, Egypt connected two vast, overlapping regions. One was the enormous empire of the Ottoman Sultans. The other was the even larger African continent. Both were immense zones of trade and interaction. But both were also struggling to find their place in a world that was industrializing faster than anyone expected. The Ottoman Empire in 1829. By Esemono, public domain. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire had been at the center of Eurasian trade that flowed between east and west. It had also been a major center of manufacturing. Workshops in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and other parts of the empire produced handmade goods that were frequently in great demand in Europe and Africa, in particular. But the industrialization of Europe meant that cheaper, machine-made goods soon flooded into the Ottoman Empire. These goods also went to regions that had once purchased Ottoman goods. The result of this sudden competition was increasing unemployment and de-industrialization. Production in much of Africa, meanwhile, had fallen after centuries of the Atlantic slave trade. Africa was increasingly seen as a place that provided resources and raw materials to European factories, not a place that could have factories of its own. But Egypt was an African country that was technically still part of the Ottoman Empire. So in the early nineteenth century, when a new Egyptian ruler wanted to rapidly industrialize, he had to carefully figure out how to work with the Ottoman sultans and the big European powers. And, of course, he couldn't ignore the Egyptian people either. Muhammed Ali and Egypt’s industrial expansion This ruler, Muhammad Ali, was appointed to control Ottoman forces in Egypt at a pretty rough time. Egypt had recently suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the French army of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798. With British help, the Ottoman forces eventually drove the French out of Egypt. Following this, Ali managed to bring about Egyptian independence from the Ottoman Empire in everything but name. Ali put in motion a campaign of modernization, beginning with his military. He required Egyptian peasants to enlist, hired European advisers, and bought modern weapons. By 1831, he was effectively an independent ruler of a stronger, more modern Egypt. This painting, by a European artist, shows Muhammad Ali in traditional Ottoman clothing, doing business involving modern sailing vessels. It is true to his reputation as a reformer and modernizer who still valued his country’s own culture and traditions. By Farouk Misr, public domain. Egypt's rural elite had ideas of their own. Ali skillfully kept them happy by restoring many Egyptian traditions and also encouraged a sense of a shared Egyptian identity across society. But he also introduced many changes in order to modernize Egypt's economy. Egypt was already a small-scale producer of cotton, which was sold to Britain, where British factories would turn it into cloth. Ali encouraged even more cotton production in Egypt. This changed life for most Egyptian peasants. They were used to working much of the year to grow food, but always got to rest in winter. After the 1810s, men, women and children still labored to grow food in summer and fall, and then in winter they were forced into cotton production. Using the money from this cotton production, Ali's government then began to sponsor factories so that Egypt could profit from its own industrialization. These factories processed cotton into clothing—beginning with the uniforms for the new military—but also produced foods and some other goods. By the late 1840s, it looked like Egypt would eventually become an industrial power. However, the Egyptian economy slowly declined in the second half of the nineteenth century. The factories stopped producing, and by the 1880s, Egypt was deep in debt to Britain. So in debt, actually, that British banks and "advisers" were calling the shots. Though Egypt remained technically independent, the reality was that now it functioned more like a British colony than a sovereign state. What went wrong? Three explanations… One explanation for the collapse of the Egyptian economy was a failure of leadership. Muhammad Ali was succeeded by members of his family, but some scholars argue they were not very effective rulers. Their focus on cotton production at the expense of other crops meant that Egypt had to rely on a single export. They lived lives of great pomp and luxury, spending extravagantly while borrowing money from European banks. These banks used this debt to influence Egypt's leaders, and eventually came to dictate much of Egypt's policy. A second explanation for Egypt's failure was environmental. They didn't have the coal resources Britain and Europe had, so Egyptian factories ran on animal power. Donkeys, or other strong creatures, had to be harnessed to mechanisms that turned the mills and other machines that automated the work. This system was more expensive and less efficient than burning coal. A third explanation was that Egyptian industry was purposefully driven into the ground by countries that also made cloth and didn't want the competition. Most of the big industrial countries, like Britain and France, had put tariffs (import taxes) on imported cloth in order to help their own industries. This meant Egypt could not sell to them at a competitive price. But these countries had also forbidden the Ottoman Empire, and hence Egypt, from putting tariffs on European goods. Egyptian factories just could not match their low prices. Reform and tradition In this difficult economic climate, the Egyptian people had a problem similar to what many nations faced during industrialization. Some looked for solutions in modernizing, or becoming more like Europeans, while others wanted to return to their Islamic roots. Some Egyptians believed Western-inspired reforms could still function within an Islamic framework, as a kind of middle ground. One scholar, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, argued that Islam could be modernized and mixed with democracy. He was joined by Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, an intellectual born to a family of Muslim scholars. Al-Jabarti studied the French when they invaded and wrote about French ideas that were worth adopting, and others that he thought should be rejected. Still another was Rifa'a al-Tahtawi. A young religious leader, or imam, al-Tahtawi traveled to France to study military and scientific technology in order to start a new university in Cairo. He studied geometry, physics and math. Upon his return, he argued these ideas were entirely compatible with Islam. But he criticized French scholars for being too secular, or non- religious, and argued that religion was necessary for the proper and thoughtful use of science. Rifa’a al-Tahtawi, imam and scientist. Public domain. Meanwhile, Europeans kept meddling in Egypt. One reason was the Suez Canal, built between 1859 and 1869. Because it connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea's Gulf of Suez, the canal was an extremely valuable shortcut for European powers to access their colonial empires. They all wanted control over it. Artist’s impression of the Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea (and then the Indian Ocean). By Artmod, public domain. Egypt's leaders could not agree on how to deal with the challenge of European intervention. They were already stressed from the industrial collapse that left their country bankrupt. Eventually, in 1875, the king sold his shares in the Suez Canal Company to the British, giving them control of this important national resource. A group of Egyptian military officers were not pleased. Led by Colonel Ahmad Urabi, they took control of Egypt's government in 1881, as a new nationalist leadership. But the powerful British took advantage of this turmoil and instability and seized the country. They restored the king, but only as a puppet ruler they could control. Thus, Egypt's industrialization and actual independence had both been ended by 1882. Egypt did not become an industrialized nation-state until much, much later–and on worse terms–than Muhammad Ali had planned. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

A Historian Reflects on a Lifetime of Change Highway with car lights© Pete Leonard/CORBIS By Cynthia Stokes Brown Acceleration, an increase in the rate of change, is occurring both in the Universe and in human culture on planet Earth. Definitions In 2011, three astronomers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering in 1998 that the expansion of our Universe is accelerating, rather than decelerating as they had expected. They found that the galaxies farthest away from our Milky Way galaxy are flying away from us faster than the galaxies nearer to us. The astronomers discovered this by charting changes in the distances of far galaxies, which they measured by observing supernovae that exploded in them. This means simply that the expansion of our Universe is happening at a faster and faster rate. That is, it is accelerating. NGC 281 or the “Pacman Nebula,”X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/S.Wolk; IR: NASA/JPL/CfA/S.Wolk Apparently this accelerating expansion of our Universe has not always been the case. It seems to have started about 5 billion years ago, about the same time that our Solar System began. No one knows what anti-gravity force can be pushing the farthest galaxies away faster and faster. Astronomers are calling this unknown force “dark energy” and are estimating that it fills about 70 percent of space. Stay tuned as astronomers learn more about this. Here on Earth a different kind of acceleration is happening. For humans, acceleration means that the rate and scale of cultural change is increasing. David Christian wrote in his book Maps of Time that it might not be an exaggeration to claim that “more change has occurred in the 20th century than in all earlier periods of human history.” Evidence for Acceleration What do we mean when we say that the rate and scale of cultural change are increasing? What evidence do we have? How can we measure change? On the cosmological or geological scale, change is measured in millions or billions of years. On the biological scale, with natural selection setting the pace, change occurs in thousands to millions of years. On the scale of human culture, large-scale change used to occur over millennia or centuries, but now it is taking place in decades or even years. Let’s look at the length of time that each of the major periods of human history has lasted. The Paleolithic era, or the era of hunting and gathering, lasted from the beginning of our species about 250,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. That’s about 240,000 years, or 240 millennia. The period of agriculture lasted about 10,000 years, or 10 millennia, while the modern industrial era has lasted 200 years, or a fifth of a millennium. Do you see a pattern of accelerating change? Each era lasted for a much shorter period of time than the earlier one. Now we seem already to be near the beginning of a new era, since we cannot continue long in our present mode: oil is running out, and the burning of fossil fuels is changing our climate. Zooming in on the 20th century, we might begin by looking at the increase of human population. In 1900 the Earth had 1.6 billion people, in 1950 it had 2.5 billion, and in 2000 it had 6.1 billion. In other words, it just about doubled twice in one century. In the lifetime of anyone who lived through the last half of the 20th century, the human population doubled in 40 years. This has never happened before in anyone’s lifetime. Since 2000 the rate of population growth has slowed somewhat, but the human population has still increased to 7 billion. This total represents an enormous, rapid, and unprecedented change for humans and for the planet. The number of people who have ever lived is estimated to be about 80 billion. Of those, 20 percent have lived in the modern era. About 8 percent (7 billion divided by 80 billion) of all humans to walk the Earth are alive today. What has made it possible for so many people to survive and live a long life? (Average worldwide life expectancy has risen from about 35 years in 1900 to about 66 years in 2000.) The answer seems to lie in the increased interplay of energy flowing through human systems and increasing innovations in human technology. The force that propels the acceleration of change in human societies today is the burning of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — and the technological innovations of the modern era. Oil came into use in the early 20th century, revolutionizing transportation by fueling cars, trucks, tractors, airplanes, and tanks. During the 20th century energy use in the world expanded 13-fold, which included oil production soaring sixfold just from 1950 to 1973. The three fossil fuels provide energy that originated from the Sun and was sent to Earth millions of years ago, supporting early life forms, preserved somewhat in their remains and then retained underground or under the sea until humans retrieve it. This extra energy propels our food production and our technologies (transportation, communications, financial systems, space exploration, and military actions). Our global civilization is based on fossil fuels at the present time. As of 2010 only about 16 percent of global energy comes from renewable sources. More people and more energy from fossil fuels has added up to a great increase in the size of the global economy — a 10-fold increase since the end of World War II in 1945. The period since then is sometimes called the “Great Acceleration,” because global increases in population, production, and energy use have increased at a previously unknown rate. Technology Over Three Generations Elevated roadways in Shanghai, China© Joachim Ladefoged/VII/CORBIS The changes in technology that occurred in the 20th century may be more vivid if I compare some aspects of the life of my grandmother, Bertha Mantz Bast, who lived from 1888 to 1987, with aspects of mine. My grandmother married my grandfather, Paul Jacob Bast, in 1909. They lived with his parents on a dairy farm in southern Wisconsin, 20 miles from Milwaukee. At that time Grandpa already had his first Ford tractor, but they had no electricity, car, radio, or telephone. They traveled only as far as they could walk, or as far as horses could pull a sleigh in winter or a buggy in summer. On special occasions they might take a train. They milked the cows by hand and pumped water into the kitchen by hand. Grandma hung the laundry on lines to dry and grew their vegetables in her gardens. The farm had kerosene lamps, wood stoves for cooking and heating, and a privy (toilet) outside. Everyone bathed in the kitchen in a large wooden tub. Grandma said they were clean and happy. During Grandma’s life on the farm — until they moved to a city in 1954 — innovations appeared that changed her life immensely. Sometime before 1920 Grandpa bought his first car, a Model-T Ford that had to be hand-cranked to start the engine. (Grandma never learned to drive.) Electricity arrived in 1921, ending the kerosene lamps. Soon there was indoor plumbing, hoses to water the garden, and eventually milking and washing machines, plus radios, telephones, and phonographs. In her 80s Grandma flew on an airplane twice to visit her daughter, who lived in San Salvador, El Salvador. In my lifetime technological innovations have appeared even faster. Before I married in 1961 antibiotics had come into use to help fight illnesses, color television (1940) had been invented, as well as atomic energy (1945) and credit cards (1950). After my marriage the first man landed on the Moon in 1969, the first IBM PCs appeared in 1981, and the first Apple Macintoshes in 1984. After that the list accelerates even more: 1990 World Wide Web1991 First hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles1992 Digital cell phones1995 DVDs1997 Toyota hybrid car released in Japan1998 High-definition television2000 Nano-Tex fabrics2001 New artificial heart and liver technology; iPods2004 Facebook2005 YouTube2007 New record of efficiency in solar cells2010 First iPad 1990 World Wide Web 1991 First hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles 1992 Digital cell phones 1995 DVDs 1997 Toyota hybrid car released in Japan 1998 High-definition television 2000 Nano-Tex fabrics 2001 New artificial heart and liver technology; iPods 2004 Facebook 2005 YouTube 2007 New record of efficiency in solar cells 2010 First iPad Now in my later years I am much more hopelessly out of date than my grandmother ever was. I have a much harder time keeping up with the innovations that keep appearing because the pace of change has accelerated. Yet the payoff for me has been staggeringly wonderful. Now I can connect almost instantaneously with anyone in the world and with all the knowledge in the world. I can jump in a plane and be anywhere within hours. I can finish the maintenance work of my daily life in very little time. Grandma would hardly be able to believe it, and she’s been gone only 25 years. In these paragraphs I have described only innovations as they have affected daily life. But technology has transformed all areas of human life. Today human activity is connected in a simultaneous global network never before attained on Earth — an exchange network that includes medicines, foods, and weapons. What will the pace of change be like during your lifetime? For Further Discussion What examples of acceleration have you noticed in your life? Are you able to do things today because of technological innovation that you were not able to do a few years ago? Share your answers in the Questions Area below. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What was Harriet Forten Purvis’ family and community like as a child?What was the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery society, and what happened when they organized a national conference in 1838?How else did Purvis and her husband fight against slavery and discrimination?What other reform movement did Purvis work for, and what were the results of their struggle?The first letter of Purvis’ name in the title is formed by two women, one African-American, one white, holding hands. These same women are shown in the last panel, but separated. What is the artist trying to tell us? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of Harriet Forten Purvis support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about social transformations and their limits during the long nineteenth century? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Harriet Forten Purvis (Graphic Biography) Writer: Lindsay Ehrisman Artist: Liz Clarke Harriet Forten Purvis was an African-American woman who fought against slavery while pioneering the struggle for women’s suffrage. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the article, which countries in the Atlantic abolished the slave trade early? Which countries abolished slavery early? Which countries abolished it late?How might capitalism have helped end slavery? How did this connect to production and distribution during the Industrial Revolution?How might changing morality helped end slavery? How did this connect to the transformations in human communities caused by the Enlightenment and changes in religious and political communities?How might networks of Africans and descendants of Africans have helped end slavery?Does the author argue that slavery actually ended when it became illegal? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: In Unit 2, you learned about political revolutions. In Unit 3, you learned about the Industrial Revolution. In this unit, you’re learning about networks of reformers who tried to change the world. This article presents you with political, economic, and reform arguments for why slavery ended. Based on what you’ve learned these past months, which argument seems most convincing? Which is the least convincing? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Why Was Slavery Abolished?: Three Theories By Trevor Getz After centuries of slavery, it was suddenly “abolished”, or made illegal, in most places in the nineteenth century. Was it morals, economics, or activism that finally made abolition a reality? Various theories make a case for each. The abolition (ending) of slavery over the course of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth marked an important moment in world history, especially in the Atlantic. In 1800, plantations worked by enslaved people, particularly Africans, stretched across the Americas. These plantations were sustained by a murderous system that brought tens of thousands of captives every year from Africa to the Americas in the most horrendous conditions. Their initial capture and enslavement and journey across the Atlantic posed so many dangers that many died before leaving the boat. Those who survived suffered a life of harsh labor, atrocious (terrible) living conditions, and an almost complete lack of rights or security until their deaths. Slavery existed elsewhere in the world—particularly in South Asia and the Islamic World—but nowhere was it as extensive or deep-rooted as in the Americas. Then, beginning in 1803, slavery and the slave trade were outlawed in many parts of the world, beginning with the European and American countries that benefited most from these institutions. In 1803, Denmark made it illegal for its citizens to participate in the Atlantic slave trade. In 1807-1808, both the United States and Britain criminalized the importation of slaves into their territory. (But they continued to enslave the people they had already imported, as well as their descendants.) Independent Haiti became the first country in the Americas to abolish slavery in 1804, followed by Cuba in 1823, Mexico in 1829, and much of Latin America soon after. The United States would not follow suit until after the Civil War in 1865. Meanwhile, the major European slave-trading powers gradually abolished the trade—the Netherlands in 1814, followed by Portugal, Spain and France by 1820. Of course, enslaved people were still smuggled into the Americas, in particular to Cuba and Brazil, where it remained legal until quite late in the nineteenth century. But the tide had definitely turned, and slavery would be outlawed in many other regions of the world in the years that followed. Why did abolition just "happen" in the nineteenth century? What shifted in this era that caused some of the biggest slave-owning and slave-trading societies to suddenly become abolitionists? There are at least three important theories to consider. Abolition of legal slavery since 1575. By Steven Pinker. CC BY 3.0. Theory 1: Free labor and free wages Perhaps the most dramatic shift toward abolitionism at the end of the eighteenth century occurred in Britain and parts of English-speaking North America. In the 1790s, Britain had the world's largest slave trading industry. One of Britain's largest companies, Lloyd's of London, insured almost every slave trading voyage between Africa and the Americas. In 1807, however, Britain became the first large country to criminalize the slave trade. In 1835, slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire. English-speaking northern U.S. states and parts of Canada followed quickly. In 1827, for example, New York passed a law abolishing slavery in that state. What changed in these regions? One theory is that it was economic. Some argued that the emerging middle class, especially in Britain, believed that slavery didn't really help them economically. These middle-class industrialists and business owners did their work without slaves. Their only participation was that they had occasionally invested in slave trading voyages, but profits were dropping in that terrible industry. Instead, they invested in businesses that paid wages to its workers. As a result, they saw slavery as unfairly competing with these businesses. Also, the slave trade created chaos in Africa. Many of these business people were hoping to make money from trade in Africa by selling finished goods to Africans and buying palm oil and other African resources to use in their factories. Ending the slave trade, they hoped, could make business in Africa more stable and profitable. Of course, this class of businesspeople generally believed in the Enlightenment ideal of freedom. These ideals included "free labor"—people paid wages for their work rather than enslaved. So their support for abolition was partly philosophical. But it is important that they also hoped to benefit financially from abolition. Additionally, these businesspeople were often competing for power politically with an older upper class of land-owning nobles, many of whom made their money partly from slave plantations. Ending the system of slavery could undercut their political opponents and help level the playing field. Thus, as historian (and later prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago) Eric Williams argues, it can be argued that slavery was only abolished when it made economic sense for some people. Theory 2: Morality Not everyone agrees that money and economic motives were at the heart of abolitionism. Philosopher John Stuart Mill, who lived in this period, argued that abolition was a result not of "'any change in the distribution of material interests," but rather "by the spread of moral convictions." Mill wrote: "It is what men think that determines how they act." These changing ideas may have had something to do with the Enlightenment. In the late eighteenth century, a new conversation about morality was emerged in Europe. Thinkers were debating who was human, and developing ideas about the brotherhood of men. These discussions inspired many leaders of the French Revolution and got people talking about the morality of slavery. The most famous image of the abolitionist movement is of a black man in chains, asking "Am I not a Man and Brother?" But there were limits to this brotherhood. In general, the new morality did not see enslaved blacks as equals. Even in this famous image, the enslaved man is depicted looking up to the European viewer, powerless and on his knee. These Enlightenment ideas were partly a result of new ways to interpret the Bible. Slavery had often been defended through readings of Old Testament texts that seemed to justify enslavement, especially of Africans. Some abolitionists were humanists (those who believed strongly in the worth of individual humans) who rejected these texts entirely. But most of the leaders of the movement—especially in Britain—were actually evangelical Christians who found new freedoms to reread these texts. Noting that the gospel called for "goodwill towards all men," they argued that slavery went against the spirit of Christianity. Am I not a man and a brother? By American Anti-Slavery Society, public domain. We can't forget that many of these same evangelical abolitionists were also businessmen who stood to profit from the abolition of slavery. However, at the same time working-class people in Britain and other locations began in the 1790s to support the abolition of the slave trade, even though they knew it wouldn't really affect the working class financially. They were motivated by a belief that the slave trade was evil, and that supporting abolition was the moral and ethical thing to do. Their main weapon was a boycott of sugar and rum, two products produced overwhelmingly by slaves. This was pretty hard for many workers, but—often led by their wives, who did the buying—working class families around Britain stopped using sugar in 1792 in support of a ban on the Atlantic slave trade. They did it again in the 1820s during the campaign to abolish slavery across the empire. These families had little reason to boycott two of their favorite products, except for the moral issues. For some it was probably true morality, for others it may have been a more self-serving wish to make others see them as moral. Theory 3: The actions of Africans in the Americas and Europe There is another theory about abolition that does not focus on the actions of white Europeans. This theory argues black Americans and Europeans—many of them formerly enslaved or the descendants of slaves—took actions that led to the end of slavery. This story centers partly in Britain, where some of the most effective abolitionists in the 1790s were black. One of these leaders was Olaudah Equiano, a formerly-enslaved man who liberated himself and lived in Britain. Equiano was baptized a Christian after his capture. In his autobiography, he used the Bible to show how the disciple Paul had clearly stated that slavery conflicted with Christian belief. His book was one of the most powerful abolitionist texts of the day, and he spoke against slavery all across Britain. Another free African, Ottobah Cugoano, also played an important role and called for the abolition of slavery in his autobiography. Black abolitionists played an even more significant role in France and its empire. During the French Revolution, black Frenchmen and Frenchwomen called for an end to slavery. They included Jeanne Odo, a woman who was born in the vast plantation colony of Saint-Domingue, as well as Jean-Baptiste Belley, a Senegalese man who had been sold into slavery in Saint-Domingue (now called Haiti). Odo, Belley, and others tried to get the French constitution to outlaw slavery. But undoubtedly the biggest leap toward ending slavery was the Haitian Revolution. A dramatic uprising of enslaved people suddenly stopped slavery in what had been the largest plantation colony in the French Empire. It was only by overthrowing the whole system, and fighting off the French army, that the enslaved population gained its freedom. Next, by removing France's largest slave colony from the empire entirely, they created conditions for empire-wide change. Although France allowed slavery to continue in its remaining colonies in the 1820s and 1830s, by 1848 it would be abolished across the French Empire. As historian Sylviane Diouf notes, "It is now recognized that without the impulsion [force] of the revolt in Saint-Domingue, the French Revolution would not have decreed [ordered] the abolition. The Haitian Revolution had radicalized the French Revolution on the question of slavery." Portrait of Olaudah Equiano from his autobiography, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa. By Daniel Orme, public domain. In Mexico in the 1820s abolitionism was also led by people of African descent. Abolition was eventually declared for almost all of Mexico in 1829, by Vicente Guerrero, a president of partly African ancestry. The United States, however, wouldn't abolish slavery nationally for another three and a half decades. Conclusion Gradually, most of the world's nation-states abolished slavery by the beginning of the twentieth century—barely over 100 years ago. There was a belief that capitalism would eventually drive out all aspects of slavery in favor of wage labor done by free workers. In reality, however, forms of slavery remained (and still remain today). In some places, slavery went underground but continued to exist, as in many parts of the Islamic World. In other places, like South Asia, class systems and other types of restrictions meant that many people were kept in terrible conditions and subjected to harsh work with no real escape. In the United States and many parts of the Americas, racial systems continued to restrict and oppress many of the formerly enslaved, while sharecropping and other economic systems amounted to slave labor. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the author, what was Lewis Hines’ contribution to the child labor reform movement?Why did formal child labor increase, especially in Europe and the United States, during this era?What was the moral objection to child labor?How and why did labor unions argue against child labor?Once child labor was outlawed, what did children usually end up doing?How did reforms in child labor impact areas in colonized Asia and Latin America? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: What do Matthew Crabtree’s testimony and Louis-René Villermé’s brief report tell you about child labor? Do they give you enough evidence to make an argument against child labor? If you were making an argument to outlaw child labor, is there any additional evidence you would want?What does this article tell us about how reformers communicated to the public? What networks and communication technologies did reformers use to spread information about child labor conditions? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Child Labor By Eman M. Elshaikh Industrial capitalism created great wealth for some, and low-paying, unpleasant jobs for many more. Child labor was a social problem driven by this new economy. In the early twentieth century, a young American scholar left his teaching position to devote his time to taking pictures. Not just any pictures, though. Lewis Hine, whose photography is now legendary, used to sneak into factories where young children worked—often resulting in him being chased out of the factories by policemen. But Hine persisted, because he wanted to show the world the social injustice of a system that put kids in horrible industrial working conditions, robbing them of a childhood. He worked with a group of reformers in the National Child Labor Committee, founded in 1904, to spread awareness of the child laborer problem. Photography itself was still a young art form, and Hine's striking photos played an important role in bringing public attention to a problem that was getting worse. A photograph taken in 1910 by Lewis Hine. It shows Addie Card, a twelve-year-old spinner from Vermont, who said she started working during a school vacation and ended up staying in the factories. By Library of Congress, Public Domain. Production and distribution, a reboot Work was changing a lot after the Industrial Revolution. The "long nineteenth century" (1750-1914) saw a rise of industrialization and wage labor everywhere, especially in Western Europe and North America. Under industrial capitalism, the systems of production and distribution changed. Production increased dramatically. That meant fewer family farms and shops and more large ranches and factories. This shift had important consequences for how people earned a living, and industry required more and more labor to sustain production. This need for labor pulled in many child workers. Many parents in need of a steady income went to work at low-wage jobs. Children, who otherwise would have helped out at home, increasingly took on semi-skilled jobs—for about one-tenth the wage adults were earning. They could handle simple tasks and were usually obedient workers, so they were in demand. In the textile industry, for example, they often cleaned machines and tied the ends of fibers together to make goods like clothing, sheets, and curtains. Typically, their work was repetitive and unhealthy. An advertisement calls for boys and girls to work at Bates Mill in Lewiston, Maine. Published in the Portland Press Herald, 1861 Public Domain. The need for reform This system of cheap labor and large-scale production was rapidly growing in many industries. It made products available at a much lower cost and generated a great deal of wealth. Where was this wealth going? If you guessed "not to any laborers, young or old" you are correct. Still, for many people wage labor was the only way to stay alive. Photograph taken in 1908 by Lewis Hine showing boys working in a glass factory in Indiana. The image was taken at midnight, suggesting that children often worked long hours. By Library of Congress, Public Domain. By the beginning of the twentieth century, there was enough dissatisfaction among workers—and socially conscious individuals like Lewis Hine—to bring about some reforms. This was most notable in the United States and Western Europe, where important liberal reforms in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries created standards for labor. These included work-free weekends, eight-hour work days, minimum wage, and compensation for workplace accidents. In most other parts of the world, industrial capitalism—and the child labor it encouraged—raged on. But politically liberal thinkers still pushed for reforms. The moral objection to child labor Labor movements grew in strength throughout the long nineteenth century, although not at the same rates everywhere. Though these labor movements had many different outcomes, one trend that emerged in many different places was the decline of child labor. Both moral ideas and economic forces played a part. Cartoons about the perils of child labor by Frederick Thompson Richards (top) and Thomas May (bottom). Image from the Philadelphia North American and later published in Cartoons Magazine, volume 3, no. 4 (April 1913). By Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries, Public Domain. Child labor had important moral dimensions—something Hine's photographs capture powerfully. Earlier cultural movements had changed how people thought about children. Education, creativity, and playfulness had become more valued, especially among the middle and upper classes in the West. But even parents who accepted these views did not always have the choice to keep their children out of the workforce. Many families relied on child labor for financial survival. Children outside of stable families, including orphans, had little choice. The poorest children were often forced into apprenticeships or indentured labor. To get a glimpse of what life was like for some child laborers, let's have a look at an interview from 1832 between a government official and a young English man named Matthew Crabtree. In the interview, Crabtree describes his experiences as a child laborer: Mr. Matthew Crabtree, called in; and Examined. What age are you? — Twenty-two. … Have you ever been employed in a factory? — Yes. At what age did you first go to work in one? — Eight. How long did you continue in that occupation? — Four years. Will you state the hours of labour at the period when you first went to the factory, in ordinary times? — From 6 in the morning to 8 at night. Fourteen hours? — Yes. With what intervals for refreshment and rest? — An hour at noon. When trade was brisk what were your hours? — From 5 in the morning to 9 in the evening. Sixteen hours? — Yes. With what intervals at dinner? — An hour. Were you always on time? — No. What was the consequence if you had been too late? — I was most commonly beaten. Severely? — Very severely, I thought. When you got home at night after this labour, did you feel much fatigued? — Very much so. Had you any time to be with your parents, and to receive instruction from them? — No. Like many children, Matthew Crabtree worked under terribly harsh conditions and was deprived of the kind of playful, educational childhood that most of us take for granted. From the age of 8, Crabtree was not protected, educated, or able to spend much time with his parents. Still, for him and many children, factory work was an economic opportunity he had to take. Because child labor conflicted with emerging moral ideas, many critics began calling for change toward the end of the nineteenth century. One French doctor, Louis-René Villermé, emphasized the poor health of children working in textile factories. "All pale, nervous, slow in their movements, quiet at their games, they present an outward appearance of misery, of suffering, of dejection [gloom] that contrasts with the rosy color, the plumpness, the petulance [childish temper] and all the signs of glowing health that one notices in children of the same." These criticisms led to new laws in Europe and the United States that regulated but did not completely end child labor. These early laws were not very effective, but by the mid-nineteenth century, new legislation had better outcomes. In parts of Europe, new restrictions made it costlier to employ children, and that led to some declines in the child work force. Countries like Italy, Russia, the United States, and Belgium lagged behind, waiting much longer—until the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries—to regulate child labor. These reform movements are all examples of political liberalism in action. During this long wait, activists for child labor reforms kept at it. In the United States, unions managed to get regulations at the state level. Organizations like the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC), who had sponsored Lewis Hine's photographs, launched public campaigns against child labor. They used posters, photographs, exhibitions, and other media to show the social injustice of child labor. One NCLC leader argued that child labor was a threat to human civilization, writing: "The thinkers of the world, those who have given the greatest attention to the problems of human development, unite to impress upon us the truth that mankind has slowly grown out of the state of primitive barbarity, has slowly climbed to the level upon which we stand to-day, thanks to the leisure and respite [rest] granted to the young offspring of human beings. And yet, at this very moment we find that wherever mechanical industry is introduced the temptation proves almost irresistible for those who have in mind only immediate and quick material aggrandizement [increased importance/wealth], to rob the child of that leisure and respite so necessary for its own sake and for the sake of progress in general, and to employ the cheap labor of little children in order to multiply profits." From "Child Labor a Menace to Civilization" by Felix Adler, an article from 1911. A poster released by the National Child Labor Committee, founded in 1904. By JD Thomas, CC BY-SA 2.0. Economic reasons to end child labor As important as the moral arguments were, the economic factors were just as influential, if not more so. As we saw, the most effective reforms were those that raised the cost of child labor. Also, adult workers competed for jobs that children were doing for much lower wages, so they often lobbied against child labor just to protect the adult job market. At the same time, machines started to replace many child laborers, who tended to perform simpler tasks that could be automated. Governments, furthermore, were concerned that child laborers made poor soldiers later on, since, as Dr. Villermé noted, work took a toll on their health. Moral and economic forces combined when new regulations made child labor too costly, and some employers stopped hiring kids simply to make better profits. But child labor was still the cost-effective option for many who were willing to ignore the law. The fact was that most of the regulations were very difficult to enforce. Inspections were inconsistent, and many children were employed in informal work. This included work on large estates, in family businesses, or in clothing manufacturing workshops, none of which were heavily monitored. Education before employment You might wonder why kids were working at all, when they should have been in school. While there were compulsory (required) education laws requiring children to be in school, they were uncommon. In Western countries, government-funded schooling expanded steadily throughout the long nineteenth century. Many countries required students to attend through a certain age. But it was hard to enforce, especially when families relied on income from children's work. A child labor standards poster from the 1940s encouraging schooling and reinforcing the rules of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Note that child labor was still permitted when children worked for their parents. Public Domain. And the idea that kids belonged in school in the first place was pretty new and limited to the upper classes. In wealthy families, where neither kids nor some adults needed jobs, kids had often received an education through private instruction. But most others had worked from a young age, usually helping their families with whatever they did for work, like farming or working within a trade. So working in industrial settings was in some ways a continuation of this arrangement. Even after reforms, school didn't immediately replace work. Instead, children often worked and went to school, particularly in rural and working-class families. A French peasant boy from the late nineteenth century described his typical day as follows: “Every day on returning from school I had my work to do. At midday as in the evening, I cut up two or three buckets of beets for the livestock; I mucked [cleaned] out the stables; and I fetched one or two [wheel] barrow loads of fodder [food] for them from a barn we had on the other side of the village.” Though this boy still likely had a difficult life, he was able to devote some of his time to developing and gaining an education—a departure from earlier times. An uneven movement Overall, in the West, there was a long-term decline of child labor as schooling increased. The kind of jobs children did also changed. They tended to do smaller tasks to support adult workers rather than doing the most difficult and dangerous work themselves. Instead of manufacturing, they did service work like selling newspapers, babysitting, and doing errands and deliveries. These are some of the same jobs many of you might do today. However, this trend was not global. Industrialization was uneven across the globe, so the presence of child labor and wage labor in general was irregular. In many places, agricultural production was still the norm. That meant that child labor remained widespread. Even in industrialized nations like Britain, a significant number of children still worked on farms. Another reason this trend was so sporadic (uneven) was because industrial production itself took many different forms. For example, in India, the vast majority of child laborers—as well as adults—worked informally. And as we noted, this made it hard to regulate it. Additionally, pressure from Western nations, including colonial pressure, often heightened exploitation of children in developing areas. For instance, cheap goods in Western nations relied on low-cost, unregulated labor elsewhere—and this continues to be the case today. Additionally, indentured service across colonized parts of Asia and encomiendas (forced labor) in Latin America continued to rely on child labor. In parts of the world such as Latin America, working children, especially orphans, were "circulated." This usually meant they were sent to families that needed extra labor. These systems continued to enslave children even after slavery was formally abolished. While child labor declined in the industrialized West, it stayed the same or even increased in agricultural or colonial societies. In separate societies around the world, the upper classes were able to invest in protecting and educating their children, just as Enlightenment thinkers had hoped. Despite this trend, child labor remained an economic necessity for many, and many children remained trapped in abusive systems of exploitation and slavery. And while the American National Child Labor Committee that sponsored Hine shut down in 2017, the international movement continues. As recently as 2019, groups like the International Labor Organization fight to protect workers of all ages and origins. A report in 2017 revealed that child labor continues, with about 152 million children around the world working. Though that is certainly a bleak (depressing) reality that activists continue to confront, child labor is far less common than it once was. Around the world, education and literacy rates among children are rising, and protections for children are more regularly created and enforced, creating a safer, healthier childhood for many. Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What two elements does the author use to define capitalism at the beginning of this article?What are credit and interest, and why did they become more common in this period?What is a bank, and how did the idea of a bank get to Europe?What are bonds, and how did the English government get involved in issuing bonds?How did joint-stock companies help stimulate trade?How did joint-stock companies help stimulate empire?What two elements did capitalist individuals and joint-stock companies combine in order to produce things and make profits? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Throughout this article, the author points out that capitalism was a major innovation, but they also point out that some elements of capitalism had been around for a long time. Viewed through the production and distribution frame, what was new about capitalism around 1750?You heard a lot about industrialization in the last unit, and you’ve encountered some information about reform movements in this unit. How do you think capitalism helped create a need for reform movements in the Long Nineteenth Century? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Overview of New Economic Systems Painting of a large group of people gathered in a courtyard. A man wearing a red robe and feathered top hat is shown pointing out towards the crowd while speaking to another individual. By Eman M. Elshaikh We're used to credit cards now, but the very idea of credit, interest, and banking were pretty radical innovations in our economic history—and they led to the emergence of capitalism in Europe. Introduction In case you missed it, the Industrial Revolution was—as nearly everything in this course has suggested—a big deal. Throughout the long nineteenth century, it transformed global trade, production, and changed how people lived and worked. It even changed how individuals thought about the world, and their place in it. One reason industrialization had such a big effect was that it was tied to the economic system known as capitalism. We even call the system that emerged in the long nineteenth century "industrial capitalism". That's because the two things are as dependently linked to each other as an axle to a wheel. And industrial capitalism is still pretty much the basis of our global economic system today, with some alterations. So where did capitalism come from? How come it was around in 1750, right when industrialization needed it? No spoilers, but the answers are "enlightening"… Innovations in finance Okay that was a spoiler, but it's an important connection to recognize: Both the idea of capitalism and the capitalist system as we know it first emerged during the long nineteenth century, because that's when Enlightenment philosophers were talking about it. They described an economic system with these two main ideas: Private individuals or groups of individuals invest their money (“capital”) in assets or in companies, making them owners or part ownersLabor, raw materials, and finished products are exchanged on a free market where the buyer and seller agree on prices Capitalism is a tad bit more complicated than that, but it’s a start. Portrait of Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith. Smith is painted wearing a black, button up boat and is looking off to the side. Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher who most extensively described the system of capitalism in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Public domain. Portrait of Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith. Smith is painted wearing a black, button up boat and is looking off to the side. Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher who most extensively described the system of capitalism in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Public domain. Now, technically, free markets and private investment have both existed for a long, long time, and in many parts of the world. But Enlightenment philosophers were able to put it into a coherent philosophy, and industrialists were now—keyword now—able to use it to great effect… and profit. Why now? Because gradual changes in the two hundred or so years before the long nineteenth century had cleared the path for industrial capitalism to march on in. Maybe the most important of these changes was the spread of credit. Credit is central to capitalism. It is an agreement between a borrower and a lender that a loan will be repaid later. In many cases, the agreement adds interest. Interest is what the borrower must repay in addition to the value of the initial loan. In many parts of the world, credit and interest were limited, and in some cases forbidden, by religious and moral views. But long-distance trade and the high costs of gunpowder warfare, both increasingly important in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, required credit. Both kings and traders had to borrow money to stay in business, so its use expanded. Meanwhile, Italian merchants returning from trade expeditions to the Muslim and Hindu world had just learned what a bank was (a place where people could pool and invest money) and brought the idea home. Banks developed new ways to deal with money, such as the bill of exchange (sometimes called a promissory note) meaning the bank fulfills the buyer's promise to pay the seller. Bills of exchange helped people give money to each other without exchanging cash and without having the money immediately at hand. These bills could also be sold or transferred to others and were safer to transport across long distances. If they sound familiar, it's because they're related to modern-day checks. Fun fact: the English word for check came from the third century Persian word čak, which became the Arabic word sakk during the Abbasid Caliphate! Drawing of a group of men wearing powdered wigs sitting around a table. One man is shown placing a seal on a charter. Sealing of the Bank of England Charter (1694), by Lady Jane Lindsay, 1905. Public domain. Drawing of a group of men wearing powdered wigs sitting around a table. One man is shown placing a seal on a charter. Sealing of the Bank of England Charter (1694), by Lady Jane Lindsay, 1905. Public domain. For a while, the Mediterranean was the hotspot of financial innovation. But power eventually shifted to Northern Europe. Dutch, British, and Swedish banks adapted foreign technologies to their own economic systems. They also developed new financial technologies, like exchanging currencies and using a standard currency for debits and transfers. Trade got more efficient, because now you could move money without having to use coins or bills of exchange. Around this time, banks started to manage money on much larger scales, including dealing with government debt. For example, when the English government needed money to finance a war with France, the Bank of England sold bonds to its customers. Bonds were basically loans to the government, which individuals could give through a bank, and the government promised to pay back the loan plus interest at a later date. Empire and finance These financial technologies revolutionized the way many nations dealt with trade, war, and especially colonial expansion. Still, international trade was risky and costly. To send a fleet of ships across the ocean, and pay and feed a crew, was financial gamble few individuals could take. During the Age of Exploration, a successful voyage promised merchants great profits. But if the ships sank or if nothing useful was found, you lost all your money. If only there were a way to share that risk with others… Joint-stock companies were the answer. Ownership of a joint-stock company was shared by several investors—they simply split initial costs and shared the profits. High-risk, high-profit business ventures became more common. Yes, they could still fail, but joint-stock companies minimized individual losses. The company basically became a separate thing so that no one person took on a huge burden. Soon, stock markets emerged, making it easy to buy and sell shares in a company. For better or for worse, a much larger segment of the population were now traders. Painting of large ships returning to port. Each ship is waving a different country’s flag. Smaller row boats can be seen following them in.A painting by the Flemish artist Andries van Eertvelt depicting ships returning from an early Dutch trading expedition to the East Indies in 1599, with the city of Amsterdam visible on the right. Public domain. Painting of large ships returning to port. Each ship is waving a different country’s flag. Smaller row boats can be seen following them in. A painting by the Flemish artist Andries van Eertvelt depicting ships returning from an early Dutch trading expedition to the East Indies in 1599, with the city of Amsterdam visible on the right. Public domain. Strictly speaking, joint-stock companies were not new, since we know they were used in the Song Dynasty in China around 1000 CE. They were also around in a different form in the Muslim World. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the joint-stock model really took off on a more international scale, starting in Europe. Imperialism as a private business may sound strange, but joint-stock companies were often able to fund colonizing projects better than governments. Running an empire was not cheap, since travel and administration costs really added up. So when it came to building overseas empires, joint-stock companies were the way to go. Among the wealthiest were the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company. These were companies, not governments, yet they performed colonial administration in India on behalf of the British and the Dutch. Many joint-stock companies also invested in the risky, but very profitable, trade in human beings. By the eighteenth century, the Atlantic slave trade was a business supported by investors, banks, and insurance—all the components of capitalism. As Europeans gained access to spices and other goods from around the globe, consumer demand increased dramatically—and a quick walk through your grocery store will show the demand never went away. Things like sugar, pepper, and coffee had been too expensive to import into Europe. But under European imperialism, they were valuable commodities as raw materials, which were then turned into highly profitable finished goods. From the middle class to the free market Business was booming, at least for Europeans. In a world that used to be just a few rich people and a whole lot of poor people, middle classes began to emerge, particularly in Europe. This had a lot to do with the rise of the merchant class, who were able to generate wealth through trade. As the middle classes gained power, they also started talking to each other and trying to gain more political power. Enlightenment ideas were swirling around, and more people felt a sense of national belonging, which only grew as national wealth grew. All this led to a new social and political environment during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It was in this context that capitalism really began to dominate the economies of European countries, their overseas empires, and their trading networks. That's why Enlightenment philosophers were able to describe that system comprehensively—because it was thriving even before the Industrial Revolution. But what did this shift look like on the ground by 1750? As trade expanded, some joint-stock companies and individuals acted as capitalists. They hired people who had been peasants, but who now became wage laborers, meaning they had to sell their labor to survive. Capitalists also bought their tools, farms, mines, and buildings. By putting those things together with labor, they could produce things on a large scale, and then sell them for a profit. A profit they didn't have to share with their workers. All of that money could then be re-invested in the business, including sponsoring innovations like new machines and technologies that could make stuff even faster. Which brings us—and capitalism—to the Industrial Revolution. Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What are the two classes that were most impacted by industrialization and what was the impact?What is class consciousness?What does it mean to say that class is a social construct?What was life like for the urban proletariat in the Long Nineteenth Century, according to the author?What was life like for the bourgeoisie in the Long Nineteenth Century, according to the author?What did Karl Marx believe was the natural relationship between the classes, and what did he argue would eventually happen?How did the middle classes come to view the working classes, according to the author, and how did that shape their view of themselves?How did the Marx’s ideas enter politics in this period? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This author describes the rise of two new (or enlarged) social classes over the course of the Long Nineteenth Century, and argues that they had pretty different lives. Do you think reality was that simple? In other words did these two classes lead entirely different lives? If not, what might be missing from this analysis? If so, what evidence convinces you? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Class Structure Painting of several upper-class men and women sitting on a train. One of the men is staring at a lower-class woman who is carrying a wicker basket filled with flowers. Another poorer woman is depicted holding a baby on the other side of the car. By Malcolm F. Purinton We talk about class like it's always been a natural part of human life, but in fact we constructed it ourselves, based largely on what you do for work. Industrialization had a tremendous effect on work, and on class. With industry comes ideas We've seen how the Industrial Revolution changed technology and working lives as it spread to new parts of the world. But it also transformed the environment, balances of power, where people lived, and social relationships. This article focuses on the last and most internal of these changes: social relations. How people saw themselves and those around them was greatly altered in this new, industrialized world. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most people around the world were peasants, farmers or caught fish. The small class that ruled them were land-owning nobles or aristocrats. The new jobs that industrialization demanded led to two big changes in systems of social class. First, industrialization led to the rise of wage-earning, working-class laborers (the proletariat) and a growing middle class (the bourgeoisie).1^11start superscript, 1, end superscriptSecond, people began to feel an affinity between themselves and other people living similar lives, even if they were from different communities and different areas. This led to what we call class-consciousness. Class-consciousness arises when people believe they belong to a specific social and economic group. Those new classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—were not formed by some law or official statement. They came to exist because individual people believed they existed. This led to the development of an "us" and "them" class awareness. We sometimes call class a social construct, because these ideas are created by society rather than having any concrete genetic or physical reality. In this case, people who became wealthy, perhaps as factory owners or industrial capitalists, saw themselves as being noticeably different than people who were poor. Poor factory laborers and domestic workers saw themselves as separate from the wealthy, and their shared experiences helped define their social group that came to be known as the proletariat. Urban proletariat Rapidly changing patterns of production and distribution caused many people to move from rural farming areas in search of urban areas with industrial jobs in manufacturing and other industries. It wasn't an easy life. They had to live and work in unhealthy places with high death rates, urgent health problems, and an overall culture of misery. There was sewage in the streets, low quality food, and no clean drinking water, all contributing to major disease outbreaks. For instance, in the 1830s through the 1850s hundreds of thousands in Russia, France, and Great Britain were killed by a water-borne disease called cholera. Workers received no protections from the government or their employers and many believed they could never advance in the world. One misfortune, like losing a job or getting sick, could mean they lost their ability to provide for their families or themselves. At the same time, many people were making a lot of money, namely the bourgeoisie. More than any other group, this middle class benefited from the rise in national incomes that came with more industrialization. Bankers, merchants, capitalists and factory owners could afford to buy all of the new industrial goods that factories were producing. The poor workers looked at the bourgeoisie as a separate social group from them—people with whom you would never expect to dine, play a game, marry or be friends. This recognition of difference enhanced their own idea of who was part of their class—the urban proletariat. In this way, class-consciousness spread and solidified as the rich got richer and the poor saw no gains in their wealth, health or happiness. In the industrializing nations of the long nineteenth century, social and economic classes soon came to represent groups with different goals, different politics and very different lives. Competition and consciousness The development of class-consciousness was helped by rising levels of unemployment and stagnant (unchanging) wages that led to more competition between classes. A German visitor to England named Friedrich Engels published The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. It identified the connections between capitalism and the troubles of the working classes. He argued that industrial capitalism caused poverty for all industrial workers. Whether they worked in large factories or small workshops, whatever the actual job, they all felt the difficulties of being poor and realized they weren't alone. The working class recognized their identity as being different from the wealthy, and solidarity between workers spread. Painting of a middle-class woman talking to a working-class woman. The middle-class woman is dressed in nice shoes and a beautiful blouse and skirt while the working-class woman is depicted wearing more ragged clothing and pushing a wheelbarrow full of fish. This 1894 illustration shows a middle-class townswoman talking with a working-class woman selling fish (so she is “fisherfolk”). Their clothing fashions highlight their different classes. Public domain. Painting of a middle-class woman talking to a working-class woman. The middle-class woman is dressed in nice shoes and a beautiful blouse and skirt while the working-class woman is depicted wearing more ragged clothing and pushing a wheelbarrow full of fish. This 1894 illustration shows a middle-class townswoman talking with a working-class woman selling fish (so she is “fisherfolk”). Their clothing fashions highlight their different classes. Public domain. Engels went on to work with Karl Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto. He believed that history was just a sequence of class struggles over economic wealth. The upper classes—whether kings and nobles or, later, factory owners—always oppressed the poorer working classes. Marx thought the future would bring a fight with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the upper classes. Marx believed that the workers would eventually succeed in overthrowing the bourgeoisie, just like the French revolutionaries had overthrown the French monarchy decades earlier. Class and working differences As the quality of life in the cities improved over the nineteenth century, many ordinary people of the lower classes got better in some ways. They were able to live longer and healthier lives than their ancestors who worked in the fields growing crops to survive. The old aristocratic upper classes continued to exist as they had before industrialization, but they weren't as secure in their position. The newly rich business families of the bourgeoisie gained wealth and power from industrial growth in areas like manufacturing, banking, and trade. Over time, the distinctions between bourgeoisie and aristocracy became pretty blurry. Wealthy industrialists might be given titles by monarchs or they could marry into aristocratic families who needed the wealth of the industrialists. The growing middle classes saw many positive changes by the turn of the twentieth century. At the same time, the gap between the lower classes and everyone else was pretty extreme. Many of the bourgeoisie became part of the government, helped run powerful corporations, or were professionals like merchants, lawyers and doctors. As these working professionals increased their wealth, they found they could spend their money on finer foods and leisure activities like dinner parties and entertainment. They imitated the upper-class lifestyle by vacationing at the beach or in the countryside, and they enjoyed new music and travel opportunities in their free time. In addition, team sports like cricket, rugby and soccer gained large followings and audiences. Alpine skiing, biking and hiking emerged as new recreations. In many cases, these activities were also available to the working classes, when they could afford it. The middle classes developed another new thing amid all these activities, and that was a pretty strict moral code of behavior. It focused on making sure everyone was self-disciplined, hardworking, and striving for personal achievement in their daily lives. They started to state—and believe—that poor people had no one but themselves to blame for their disadvantages. Reformers2^22squared pointed to drunkenness and gambling as dangerous vices that controlled the weaker peoples while they focused on purity and fidelity as middle-class virtues. Some began to try to change the working classes to live according to their middle-class ideas of morality. The urban working class developed several sub-classes based mostly on each worker's level of skill. The highly skilled might be construction bosses and factory foremen. They often adopted and strictly obeyed middle class morality to look and act like they were middle class themselves. Factory and construction workers could be considered semi-skilled. They often worked in textile factories and woolen mills, where you would find many working women as well. At a lowest level of the working class were the day laborers such as longshoremen, who worked on the docks loading and unloading ships, and domestic servants, who worked in the homes of middle-class families. They were considered unskilled, even if they actually had plenty of skill! Mass politics and classes As urbanization and industrialization expanded, so did class and national consciousness. People of all classes sought to either keep their political power or gain more influence. Workers wanted better pay, better safety and fewer hours. They sought to gain these through greater political influence. Many workers formed unions that worked together to effect change through strikes and collective bargaining. New political parties were formed to address working-class issues. Those included many socialist parties in nations across Europe, who were influenced by Marxist ideas. Photo of tired looking factory workers leaving work at the end of the day.Workers leaving the factory at the end of the day in 1900. Public domain. Photo of tired looking factory workers leaving work at the end of the day. Workers leaving the factory at the end of the day in 1900. Public domain. By the time World War I began in 1914, the class structures of the industrial and urban worlds had changed considerably over the previous 100 years. The old aristocratic class was still at the top of the social pyramid, but its wealth had declined. As a result, the aristocrats became tied more closely to the growing wealth of the newly rich middle class (bourgeoisie). While the bourgeoisie was pretty small through the first half of the nineteenth century, this group, situated in the middle of the post-industrial pyramid, greatly expanded, gaining much more influence. But the working classes (proletariat), or those at the bottom of both pyramids, very slowly gained more political power in some places. This power was something that really hadn't existed before the Industrial Revolution. However, by 1914, the proletariat still suffered from a wide income gap, and continued to remain at the bottom of the pyramid. This gap would deeply impact the events that were about to happen on the global stage. [Notes] Author bio Malcolm F. Purinton is a part-time lecturer of World History and the History of Modern Europe at Northeastern University and Emmanuel College in Boston, MA. He specializes in Food and Environmental History through the lens of beer and alcohol. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the article, industrialists owned the means of production under industrial capitalism. What are the means of production, and how did controlling them make industrialists powerful?Why did industrialists begin to hire women, and what were their experiences?What were conditions like for workers overall?What is the proletariat?How, according to the author, did workers begin to organize into alliances like unions, and what were their principal tactics?Why, according to the author, was there less union organizing in the colonies? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Does the author of this article seem more sympathetic towards workers or towards industrialists? Do you think their sympathies change how you understand this article?This article defines and describes the proletariat class. Looking around your world today, do you think there is still a proletariat? If so, has it changed at all since the nineteenth century? How? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Rise of the Proletariat By Rachael Hill and Eman M. Elshaikh The Industrial Revolution created a class of people who could only get money with their labor. As profits increased for company owners and working conditions got worse, labor movements pushed for reforms. Workers and capitalists If you've never heard the expression "to put the squeeze on someone," it's about financial pressure. This political cartoon shows how low wages and high rent force George Pullman's employee to cough up what little money he has left. The infamous Pullman Company made railway cars during the railroad boom in the United States. The company was the target of a major nationwide workers' strike in the late nineteenth century after cutting workers' pay. The strike began south of Chicago in a town called Pullman, because the company owned it. (Yes, companies can own whole towns.) So in Pullman, Illinois, the Pullman Company set the price of rent. The wages workers earned went right back to the company's owners in the form of rent. The owners got wealthier while workers struggled to make ends meet. A political cartoon called “The Condition of Laboring Man at Pullman.” How would it feel to be the employee in this image? Chicago Labor Newspaper, Public domain. Workers had little control over the cost of living, their work hours, wages or conditions. While a lot of wealth was being generated, wages for laborers stayed low. Under this system, called industrial capitalism, workers had little power because labor was the only way for them to make money. Pullman and business owners like him got much richer because they owned the means of production—that is, the tools and materials used to create goods. Someone who privately owns the raw materials, factories, machinery and other equipment needed to produce goods and provide services is a capitalist. Simply put, a capitalist holds capital. In this context, capital includes the means of production and all other resources (money, property, etc.) needed to produce whatever it is you're selling. Workers leave the Pullman Palace Car Works, 1893. Public domain. Industrial capitalism Sound familiar? That's because industrial capitalism has been the dominant global system of production and distribution for two centuries. It still is, although now it has been modified by the actions of workers and reformers, as you will read below. 1911 American Political Cartoon criticizing capitalism. Public domain. You have already learned that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, industrial capitalism grew with massive speed and strength. Mass production in Western Europe and the Americas, in particular, became possible. Suddenly, goods could be made faster and cheaper than ever before. Factory owners and people who invested in their factories often got rich. As capitalists, they owned the means of production, so they got the profits. But most ordinary people didn't own factories. Most were workers who sold their labor in return for a wage. They worked using the means of production owned by someone else to produce goods for someone else. When company profits went up, wages usually did not. A class of workers To keep up the rapid pace of production, industries needed a lot of laborers. Fortunately for them, this was also a period when populations were booming and many rural people, especially in Europe, were losing access to their land. Rural farmers flooded into cities to work in factories. That still did not meet the high demand for labor, so many women and children also went to work. For some women, it was liberating to gain independent wages, mobility and a better standard of living. For most, however, industrial work in the nineteenth and early twentieth century resulted in a life of hardship. Most women had no political, social or economic rights outside the home. That meant they usually got stuck with low-skilled, low-paying jobs in domestic service, textile factories and coal mines. Women usually received one-third to one-half the pay that men received for equally hard work. On top of that, working women were still expected to cook, clean and care for children even after long hours of work outside the home. It is also important to remember that women's unpaid labor in the home made it possible for the men to go out and work. Illustration of woman coal worker from 1842. Public domain. Though women had a particularly difficult situation, men and women both endured extremely harsh work conditions. There wasn't a minimum wage, and workers could be fired at any time for any reason. They typically worked 12 to 16 hours a day, six days a week, with only 30 minutes for lunch and dinner. Workplace injuries and deaths were common. But because accidents rarely cost the employers very much, there was little concern for workers' safety. Dead or injured workers were simply replaced. As industrial capitalism grew, so did the number of workers. German social scientist Karl Marx described industrial capitalism in great detail. He provided his understanding of the means of production, capital and wage labor. He also coined the term proletariat to describe the entire class of wage workers who can only earn money by selling their labor. Over time, workers in many places came to identify themselves as part of the proletariat. Workers' new self-awareness as a part of a social class with shared difficulties brought them a step closer to the labor movements that would demand improvements to this system. German social scientist Karl Marx. John Jabez Edwin Mayal, International Institute of Social History, Public domain. So how did a person's thinking go from "my job is horrible and unfair" to "our system is horrible and unfair"? When did people understand they were in a common struggle? Industrial labor created new economic opportunities while changing social life in unexpected ways. Workers who used to spend the day outside in agricultural settings were now crammed inside crowded mills, factories and mines. This made it easier for people to talk to each other, share their experiences, and organize themselves into alliances. One type of alliance is a union, a group of workers with common interests. In the United States, for example, these common interests were better work conditions, shorter hours and better pay. A nineteenth-century individual who went to her boss with these demands would have been laughed at or fired. Unions, however, used collective bargaining, meaning a large number of workers make the same demands at the same time. Employers couldn't fire and replace everyone at the same time without disrupting production and hurting profits, so this method was a way to force employers to meet workers' demands. Workers formed unions in individual factories, whole industries, or even at the national level. Unions were an important part of many labor movements and they often expressed their demands for better working conditions through strikes and protests. Strike rates increased steadily in the nineteenth century as workers became more organized. A global economic slump that lasted from the 1870s to 1900 meant that many workers were either laid off or had their wages cut, causing even more unrest. Cartoon published in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) journal Solidarity on June 30, 1917. Ralph Chaplin, public domain. There were many unions, strikes and protests across the globe during the long nineteenth century, but their beliefs were not the same. Some labor movements pushed for reforms while others demanded revolution. Reformers wanted improvements like better pay, safer conditions and generally humane treatment, while revolutionists wanted to end the capitalist system and replace it with something else. Industrial capitalism on a global scale Now that goods could be mass produced cheaply and quickly in factories, huge markets for these new items opened up worldwide. Specifically, the lands that European powers were conquering and colonizing overseas were full of potential consumers. Outside of Europe and North America, the labor movement looked pretty different. Still, there were broad patterns to most labor movements around the world. For example, industrialization in India was heavily controlled by British colonial powers, but so were the labor movements. The British government placed restrictions on some Indian industries like textile manufacturing because they wanted to protect their own textile industry from competition. This slowed the development of these industries in India. But when business did pick up, it grew rapidly and Indian workers were forced to work even longer hours than their British counterparts—for even lower pay. The British government was instrumental in creating protections for Indian laborers. It sounds nice at first, but why exactly did they do it? The British knew full well that these labor protections made Indian labor costlier, making the textiles costlier. That gave a competitive advantage to British textile manufacturers. In some parts of Africa, wage labor emerged but colonial rulers helped companies keep wages low and stop labor organizing through laws and force. In general, however, the African wage labor force remained fairly small for decades, so unions and labor movements only emerged after World War II. In these regions, trade unions1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript played a critical role in post-World War II African independence movements. It's also important to remember that many workers were not confined to one country. Labor moved across the globe in the form of enslaved peoples, migrant workers and indentured laborers. For example, Indian laborers often migrated to Africa or the West Indies. East African porters traveled across large territories, transporting goods by caravan. Chinese workers also migrated widely, from North America to South Africa. These transnational movements made it difficult to organize labor. Newly arrived indentured laborers from British colonial India in the British West Indies. Public domain. So, organized unions were an important part of many systems of labor, though certainly not all. Geographical, political, economic and social barriers made it hard for workers to come together, communicate and organize themselves into labor movements. The labor movements that did take flight had different characteristics in different industrial settings, but the common trends were significant. Generally, workers owned only their labor, sold their labor for a wage, had little to do with profits, and increasingly sought alliances to improve their situations. [Notes] Author bios Rachael Hill holds a Ph.D. in African History from Stanford University. She is currently a visiting assistant professor at San Francisco State University. She has taught History Methodology and African History at the university level and Critical Reading to high school students. Her research focuses on the history of traditional medicine and medicinal plant research in 20th-century Ethiopia. Eman M. Elshaikh is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences, focusing on history and anthropology and where she is currently a Ph.D. student. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What is suffrage, according to this article?What kind of reform movement helped to stimulate the development of a women’s suffrage movement in New Zealand, and how?Why did a government of men, in the United Kingdom, give women over 21 the right to vote in 1929?Why was women’s suffrage so slow to be granted in India, which was also ruled by the United Kingdom (Great Britain)?What groups of women were excluded from voting in North America before the 1960s?What arguments did women in Latin America use to get suffrage, according to the author?What important political change made universal women’s suffrage possible in most of Africa? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article looks at women’s suffrage by region, but we know that women’s suffrage networks stretched across borders and around the world. What trends in women’s suffrage do you see that look similar across several different regions?Reflect on the last sentence of the article. How do you think achieving women’s suffrage changed political conversations and actions within nation-states? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. A World Tour of Women’s Suffrage Bridgette Byrd O’Connor Voting rights are often taken for granted. Yet women had to fight hard for suffrage in a battle spread unevenly across decades and continents. One thing they ultimately had in common? Success. Background Suffrage, meaning the right to vote in elections, is a hallmark of modern political systems. But most nation-states that emerged from the revolutions of the eighteenth century limited suffrage to small groups. Voting rights only expanded slowly over time. This is especially true for women, who usually had to fight hard for the right to vote. The story of women's suffrage has an unusual chronology. Women gained voting rights in a series of small, irregular victories around the world long before most nations would permit it. Some states, provinces and local areas started allowing women to vote in state and local elections, giving the movement more strength. So before we can discuss how women successfully achieved the right to vote, we need to look at these more local triumphs. The fight in some areas lasted much longer than in others, so the movement can't be neatly outlined according to time and place. Factors such as race, class and age also make the history of this movement even more complex and interesting. So maybe the best way to tell the story is to take a journey around the globe. We'll look at the when, where, who and how of suffrage movements in six different regions of the world. Region 1: New Zealand and Australia In 2018, New Zealand celebrated the 125th anniversary of women's suffrage. With the passage of the Electoral Act of 1893, New Zealand was the first self-governing nation to award women the right to vote in national elections. This achievement was largely due to the work of Kate Sheppard, an English woman who migrated to the city of Christchurch on New Zealand's South Island. She became the head of a Presbyterian group called the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1887. The group's main focus was an end to the sale and consumption of alcohol. But Sheppard argued that women must first be allowed to vote if they were to have any effect on the alcohol issue. She traveled across the country gathering women's signatures on a petition she presented to the New Zealand Parliament. They rejected her first request, but then in 1893, with the signatures of almost 32,000 women unveiled on her now massive petition, the men in Parliament passed the resolution. Even though New Zealand granted all women suffrage, they would have to wait until 1919 before women could run for elected offices. New Zealand Women’s Suffrage Petition, the entire scroll of signatures presented to Parliament (left) and detail of signatures (right) presented to Parliament (right), housed at the National Library, Wellington, New Zealand. By Bridgette Byrd O’Connor, CC BY-NC 4.0. While this national achievement was remarkable, there were other state and local areas that had given women the right to vote prior to 1893. But New Zealand was the first to give all women1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript the right to vote at the national level. Neighboring Australia would also grant women the right to vote, first at the provincial and then at the national level in 1902. However, in Australia only white women were given this right while Aboriginal women2^22squared would have to wait another 60 years before suffrage was granted to them. Region 2: Europe The next stop on our world tour is Europe. The publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" (1792) was a game changer. Many historians see this lengthy essay as the starting point for women's calls for equality. Her work was inspired by Enlightenment ideas of equality and natural rights. Wollstonecraft advocated for the education of women and wrote that the sexes were not naturally unequal, but that society placed unequal burdens on them. The main burden for women was the lack of educational opportunities that kept them subservient (obedient) to men. (Fun fact: Wollstonecraft's daughter, Mary Shelley, wrote Frankenstein.) Suffragette meeting in Manchester, England, c. 1908. By The New York Times, public domain. Women's suffrage in Europe began at the local level in 1862 when Sweden granted voting rights to rural widows and spinsters, but not to married women. Finland followed suit in 1872 by allowing taxpaying women to vote. Other nations also allowed certain classes of women the right to vote in local elections including England, Wales and Scotland. However, women would have to wait until the early twentieth century before securing full voting rights throughout Europe. One of the most well-known efforts during the suffrage movement was in the United Kingdom, where violent tactics were sometimes used to bring attention to the cause. In May 1929 after a century of organization, protests, petitions and arrests, Parliament voted to allow all women over the age of 21 the right to vote in general elections. This afforded women the same voting rights as men. In France and Italy, women had to wait until the end of World War II for full suffrage. The women of Spain and Switzerland did not get the right to vote until 1971. Women in Liechtenstein had to wait even longer, with full voting rights secured in 1984. If you do the math, that's 91 years later than New Zealand. We weren't kidding when we said women's suffrage has an unusual chronology. Region 3: Asia The massive continent of Asia holds a wide variety of cultures. To understand the history of women's suffrage in an area so large, let's break it up geographically into three parts: Central Asia, East and Southeast Asia, and West Asia (also called the Middle East, from a European perspective). Central Asia Many Marxists believed that women's suffrage was needed in a socialist state, and indeed this right was granted toward the end of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Central Asian nations with ties to Russia did the same. Over the next 20 years other areas, even those Central Asian nations without ties to Russia, followed suit. East and Southeast Asia Nations in East and Southeast Asia gave women the right to vote at various times with Mongolia (1924) and then Thailand leading the way. The official year for universal suffrage in Thailand was 1932, but Thai women could vote in local elections as early as 1897. Women in China, Asia's largest and most populous nation, had to work to change the existing structures of government before the fight for suffrage could begin. When the new draft constitution for the Republic of China was written in 1936, it included universal suffrage. But then came Japan's 1937 invasion, World War II, and the Communist Revolution. Women would have to wait until 1947 to actually exercise their voting rights. Speaking of Japan, Japanese women faced a similar fight. The country was ruled by an emperor until 1945, but the Meiji dynasty did allow for some reforms during their rule. When male suffrage became universal in 1925, Japanese women continued their fight to be included. However, in the following decades Japan's imperial conquests in Asia—and of course World War II—would overshadow the rights of women. Suffrage was finally granted to women at the end of 1945. The last stop on the Southeast Asian leg of our tour is India. While women in the United Kingdom were granted full voting rights in 1928, British colonies such as India were another story. Indian men only had limited suffrage under British colonial rule, and a small percentage of women were allowed to vote in provincial regions. Opposition to women's suffrage came from both the British government and many Indian officials. These men argued that women did not have the knowledge to participate and that voting would erode traditional family values. But then India gained its independence from Britain, and the Constitution of India went into effect in 1950, with universal suffrage granted. West Asia (also called the Middle East) Women in the Middle East have fought the longest battle for suffrage and equal rights. Some majority Muslim nations extended suffrage rights from the 1950s to the 1970s including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Yemen. However, other nations took much longer, and internal conflicts suspended the rights of many. For example, the Taliban eliminated women's suffrage in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Women in Iraq gained the right to vote in 1958, but could not exercise that right due to a sudden change of regime. Oman and Qatar allowed women to vote in 1997 and 1999, respectively, but in Bahrain it didn't happen until 2002. The last country to extend voting rights to women was Saudi Arabia, in December of 2015. Women voting in Kabul, Afghanistan, 2004. By Albana Vokshi, public domain. Region 4: North America Now we journey to North America, where the suffrage movement began as part of a larger call for social justice reform led mostly by nineteenth-century women. In addition to voting rights, many women took to the streets for issues including religious reawakening; temperance (anti-alcohol); abolition of slavery; and educational, labor and legal reforms. As in the United Kingdom, the American suffrage movement was inspired by the work of Mary Wollstonecraft and the Enlightenment ideas of natural rights and equality. Women Marching in Suffragist Parade, Washington, DC, 1913. Public domain. Both American and Canadian women won the right to vote in 1920, although many women could already vote in state and provincial government elections. Only after World War I, when women's contributions to the war effort were recognized, did women gain voting rights. But it did not include all women. Indigenous American women were granted United States citizenship along with indigenous men in 1924, but restrictions at the state level meant that some men and women could not vote until 1948. In Canada, the indigenous population was excluded from full voting rights until 1960. While African American women legally won the right to vote with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920), many states restricted the voting rights of black men and women. The calculated use of poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses prevented most African Americans from even registering to vote. Those tactics were finally made illegal with the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Sadly, as recently as the 2018 midterm elections in the United States, controversial policies have revived the argument that many minorities are still being denied full access to their voting rights. Region 5: Latin America Let's travel south. In Mexico, Central and South America, feminist and suffrage movements were part of a bigger story happening in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The people in this region were fighting hard to form independent nation-states. Women in these areas first had to fight for freedom from colonial rule, and the right to even have national elections. That's why women's suffrage in this area came later than in others. (No spoilers, but this is going to sound familiar when we get to Africa.) Uruguay (1927), Ecuador (1929), and Chile (1931) were among the first newly independent nations to grant women both access to higher education and suffrage. Brazil and Cuba (1943) followed with Guatemala and Venezuela (1946), Argentina (1947), and finally Chile and Costa Rica (1949) rounding out the first half of the twentieth century. Bolivia, Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay did not extend suffrage to women until the 1950s and early 1960s. Women demonstrate at the National Congress for women’s suffrage holding signs that read “The Women’s Center Presents, Maria Eva Duarte de Peron, Woman Can and Should Vote”, 1947. Public domain. Many women who organized groups to fight for suffrage were from the upper classes of society and had often been educated abroad. But most women in Latin America also had to overcome discrimination based on the traditional roles they were expected to fulfill. Local culture and the Catholic Church made those traditional female roles difficult to change. As a result, women made the case for how suffrage would improve family life and strengthen the government of their newly independent nations. They drew on examples set by European and North American women. But at the same time, Latin Americans fighting for suffrage were not crazy about copying the same countries that had colonized and repressed them. Consequently, many women in Latin America took a more nationalistic and socialist view of equality and rights. They focused on the rights of workers, the ills of capitalism, and the need for social reforms. This contrasted with the more individualistic, personal efforts of Western women. Region 6: Africa The final stop on our tour is where humanity began. Prior to the "scramble for Africa" by imperialist nations, indigenous African women often held positions of political and economic power. Their roles in society were often viewed as complementary to men's. They were also seen as spiritual leaders, but their political role was often restricted. Many communities also practiced matrilineal descent3^33cubed in much the same way as some areas of Southeast Asia did. But then European powers began carving up the continent, and it all changed. Men were given the power to act politically through indirect rule. In the early twentieth century, women joined the resistance and nationalist movements for independence. They protested colonial governments while also requesting more rights for women. They formed organizations, wrote articles and lobbied the government for reforms. Congolese woman defends women’s rights with a slogan (“Mom is as important as Dad.”) on her headscarf and dress, 2015. By MONUSCO, CC BY-SA 2.0. While African women did call for universal suffrage, they first had to fight to establish independent states. Once colonialism was ended, the new right to vote was almost always extended to women at the same time as to men. In South Africa, white women were given the right to vote much sooner than black women due to the policy of apartheid in this country. Black women, therefore, did not achieve full suffrage until the end of apartheid in 1994. Even in the two countries that retained their independence in the "scramble for Africa"—Liberia and Ethiopia—women were not allowed to vote in elections until the mid-1950s. Conclusion There is no part of the world where the fight for women's suffrage could be called easy. Across societies, differences in culture as well as views of class and race gave an advantage to some women, and a disadvantage to others. In most nations, upper-class, educated women organized for voting rights first. They had time and resources that working-class women did not. Yes, the history of women's suffrage can seem pretty disjointed when you attempt to lay it out chronologically and geographically. But the goal was the same: women must be allowed to participate in their governments if they are to achieve equality. The social justice struggles that continue into the twenty-first century including equal pay, health rights, and access to education could only be fought once women gained the right to vote. [Notes] Author bio Bridgette Byrd O’Connor holds a DPhil in history from the University of Oxford and has taught Big History, World History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics for the past ten years at the high school level. In addition, she has been a freelance writer and editor for the Big History Project and the Crash Course World History and U.S. History curriculums. [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: When was Ottilie Baader born, and how old was she when she began school? What did she learn there?When did Ottilie begin working, and why? What were her days like at that age?What was Ottilie’s job in the wool factory like?Why did Ottilie become a labor organizer around 1871?How does the artist use design to depict Baader’s life as a factory worker, but also her attempt to change her condition? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: What evidence does Ottilie Baader’s story provide about industrialization as an engine of change in people’s lives?How does it support, extend, or challenge what you have already learned about the impact of the Industrial Revolution? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Ottilie Baader (Graphic Biography) Writer: Trevor Getz Artist: Liz Clarke Ottilie Baader became a leader of the German labor reform movement, but she also lived a life of work, not unlike many industrial workers of her time. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What were “Victorian” ideals of gender roles, according to the article? How did they spread around the world?This period saw the rise of the “new women” in Europe and America. Who were “new women”?What kinds of impacts did European imperialism have on women in Asia in this period, according to the author?How did women in Nigeria attempt to use their traditional roles as mothers to protest British taxes and colonialism?How did the rise of Marxism (socialism) create potential for change in gender roles?According to the author, did nationalism create new opportunities for gender equality, or not? Explain your answer. Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article begins with the spread of European-inspired “Victorian” gender roles. How were these ideas expressed in new nation-states being created around the world? What does this tell us about empire as a community?This article also looks at the spread of ideas like nationalism and socialism as forces that could challenge Victorian gender roles, but only to a certain degree. What does this tell us about the role of networks in spreading new ideas about gender, and their limitations? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Changing Gender Roles Photo of a man washing the laundry as his wife sits down and reads a magazine. By Bridgette Byrd O’Connor Gender roles have often been defined by a separation of men into public spheres, such as business and leadership, and women into private spheres, such as homemaking and motherhood. But the new ideas in the long nineteenth century—like nationalism, communism and industrialization—challenged these roles. Introduction In the long nineteenth century, ideas about gender1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript started to change. Men and women have had gendered roles in almost all societies throughout history; although these roles varied a great deal depending on the geographic location. But in the long nineteenth century, the expansion of European colonialism spread European norms about men's and women's roles to other parts of the world. Sometimes it spread through cultural networks of exchange and sometimes by force and coercion. In many societies, men's roles were in the public sphere, meaning things like government and business. Women, by contrast, participated in the private sphere of the home. But there were lots of exceptions to this! Most people's lives and stories don't fit neatly into these boxes of public and private spheres. Life is more complicated than that, and not everyone performs the role society assigns them. Gender roles are different in different places, cultures, societies and social classes. Many European societies subscribed to "Victorian" ideals of gender roles, named for the long reign of the British Queen Victoria. Women were to stay in the home, and if they went out, they usually only went to spaces separate from men. While Queen Victoria didn't exactly fit into this traditional gender role—she did rule all of Britain and its empire—she still conveyed these ideals to her subjects. Because of the global reach of the British Empire, these ideas spread all over the world, often through force. Photo of a man washing the laundry as his wife looks on smoking a cigarette. The man is this photo is shown wearing traditionally feminine clothing while his wife is wearing traditionally male clothing.“The New Woman”– this satirical photo represents changing gender roles in the nineteenth century. The “New Woman” dressed in man’s clothing is observing her husband doing the washing, 1901. By Underwood & Underwood and courtesy of the United States Library of Congress, public domain. Photo of a man washing the laundry as his wife looks on smoking a cigarette. The man is this photo is shown wearing traditionally feminine clothing while his wife is wearing traditionally male clothing. “The New Woman”– this satirical photo represents changing gender roles in the nineteenth century. The “New Woman” dressed in man’s clothing is observing her husband doing the washing, 1901. By Underwood & Underwood and courtesy of the United States Library of Congress, public domain. But in the long nineteenth century, people all over the world found new ways to resist these oppressive gender roles. New ideas like socialism, nationalism and women's rights helped transform traditional attitudes and expectations. As a result, gender roles began to shift and change. The labor-intensive Industrial Revolution brought many women out of the home to work in factories. Colonized people began to resist European control. These and other changes also helped create social reforms and new ideas about childhood, voting rights, education and labor. In Europe and America, the term "New Woman" was applied—and not always as a compliment—to women who sought greater access to higher education and more freedoms. Many women of different classes united to fight for greater rights in the workplace, marriage and, of course, the voting booth, where they wanted their voices to be heard in government. In the colonized world, changing gender roles emerged alongside nationalism and struggles for independence. People there resisted colonialism and formed transnational networks to fight for women's rights. Ideas about how to define gender, femininity and even masculinity were transforming everywhere. Changing gender roles in Asia In Asia, particularly East and Southeast Asia, Confucianism had the greatest impact on defining gender roles, and it defined women as subordinate to men. This applied to women in prominent roles at court as well as women in middle- to lower-class households. Social traditions deemed that women should be respectful of the men in their lives: rulers, fathers, husbands, brothers and sons. Confucian ideology wasn't just confined to East Asia and China— its influence reached other areas through trade and migration. For the most part, East Asian women were confined to living and working in the private sphere around the home. However, some women broke free from these constraints. There were a handful of powerful women in Chinese government, such as Empress Dowager Cixi, who dominated governmental policy during the Qing Dynasty. Other women exercised power alongside male relatives. Some women also had to work outside of the home to support their families. Wet-rice farming was a labor-intensive process that required both men and women to participate in the planting, tending and harvesting of the crop. Along with agricultural duties, many women also worked in the textile industry, although this was usually done in the home prior to industrialization. When men were called off to war, women took their places in the fields and in the markets. As these examples show, Confucian ideals were often very different from the daily life of many women, especially those of the middle to lower classes. These traditional Chinese roles began to change as European imperialists pushed their way into China. European desires to open up China's markets unleashed more changes for China in both political and intellectual life. This mainly affected the upper classes. However, those changes would be felt by many people living in both China and Southeast Asia, as European imperialism spread. There is a Chinese saying that goes, "Chinese learning for essence, Western learning for application." It expresses the Chinese view of the European intrusion as necessary for military and economic reasons, but also a commitment to keep their traditional Confucian ideals. Photo of an Asian woman wearing a white, lacey dress and carrying a paper fan. Portrait of Surabaya, an Indo-Chinese woman in 1910. By the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies and Leiden University Library, public domain. Photo of an Asian woman wearing a white, lacey dress and carrying a paper fan. Portrait of Surabaya, an Indo-Chinese woman in 1910. By the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies and Leiden University Library, public domain. Other aspects of European life can be seen throughout China during the long nineteenth century, including in how aristocratic women presented themselves. The portrait above of Surabaya shows her dressed in European-style clothing and posing in the style of European portraiture of the period. And while that's a lovely fashion statement, European imperialism in other parts of Asia was not as popular or kind. Many women in Southeast Asia living under imperialist control were hired as inexpensive labor for European plantations and factories. Conditions in these areas were similar to other plantation systems in that the work was hard, the conditions were horrific, and the pay was very low. And while this work outside of the home was not a new prospect for those in the lower classes, the conditions and discriminatory practices of the European imperialists did push women and men to seek out reforms and independence. Nationalism, socialism, and resistance In many areas of Africa and Latin America, traditional gender roles changed as a result of resistance to colonialism. Gender roles in Africa varied depending on the location. But generally, men and women performed different types of jobs. In many regions of the continent, women farmed while men tended to animals and did metalworking. In West Africa, both men and women were traders and merchants, although men usually held more of these positions than women. Photo of five Igbo woman wearing stripped, wrap dresses. Each woman is also shown wearing sandals and head jewelry. Igbo women in the early twentieth century, unknown author. Image courtesy of Margery Perham, Native Administration in Nigeria, London, 1937, UNESCO. Public domain. Photo of five Igbo woman wearing stripped, wrap dresses. Each woman is also shown wearing sandals and head jewelry. Igbo women in the early twentieth century, unknown author. Image courtesy of Margery Perham, Native Administration in Nigeria, London, 1937, UNESCO. Public domain. With the expansion of imperial control throughout the nineteenth century, Western nations attempted to force their ideas about gender roles on their colonized subjects. But imperialist governments often underestimated the cultural power and importance that women had in local society. Indigenous women attempted to use their traditional roles to exert influence over European imperial governments. For example, Igbo-Ibibio women in Nigeria were angered when the British officials attempted to tax women's property. Historian Temma Kaplan describes how thousands of women marched to the capital to confront the British representatives: "The women stole the hats [of the British men ], then they rubbed their naked bottoms over the faces and bodies of the chiefs and their court officers, who had dispatched the census takers. The demonstrators moved on to the towns and attacked British merchants whom they held responsible for the declining price of palm products and the high costs of imported goods. When the Yoruba troops, members of an alien ethnic group, were ordered to attack the women, the women turned their backs and mooned2^22squared the soldiers—challenging them to 'shoot your mothers.' The soldiers shot down 18 women in a massacre that alerted the British to anti-imperialist sentiments, which would increasingly intensify" (Kaplan 178). In Africa, Asia and Latin America, women began to take on political roles in the organization of labor unions and political groups that fought for independence from Western powers. Men's roles also changed, because no matter your gender, the white ruling class treated all indigenous people as inferior. In Latin America, the arrival of European powers meant that Western beliefs and gender roles were pushed on the indigenous population. Any power that indigenous women had was lost as the Catholic church introduced patriarchal values. However, as independence movements erupted across Latin America, women and men challenged these values. Many of these independence movements used the theories of Karl Marx and his views about workers' rights. For example, Marxism in theory imagined equality for all people regardless of class or gender. There were assigned roles for men and women, but theoretically both men and women could attain leadership roles and advance as workers and in the party. For many revolutionary women and men, there was a struggle between the more traditional views of gender separating the public (male) and private (female) spheres. Independence, therefore, was viewed as being achieved through a class struggle and the overthrow of imperial powers. As a result of more women entering the labor force and with workers uniting to fight for independence, industrialization and independence movements helped change gender norms. Nationalism also played a role in these efforts. New ideas about the solidarity of the nation and the creation of shared stories or myths helped to unify people living as members of one nation. While differences in gender or ethnicity weren't supposed to be highlighted, both men and women's roles in the nation were still well defined. Women were praised as patriots for being homemakers and mothers, while men went out to participate in the actual governing of the nation. Conclusion The imagery used in the formation of a new nation was also steeped in gender. Some of the new nations that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were characterized as feminine while those defending or fighting to secure the nation, usually through military force, were masculine. For example, images of "Lady Liberty" and "Republican Motherhood" were used in both in the American and French revolutions. Liberty, symbolized by a woman, led the people into battle. But in terms of appropriate gender roles for women, images of motherhood and protectors of the family from within the home were used most often. In contrast, men were viewed as the revolutionary fighters and were praised for their strength and virility. Men were seen as protectors of the family and nation from outside the home. As new nations emerged in Germany, Italy and Japan, their leaders spoke of a "Fatherland." Women often played a role in national unification. But in these new "masculine" states, men were supposed to embody masculine virtues of strength while women were once again pushed to the margins of public life. [Notes] Author bio Bridgette Byrd O’Connor holds a DPhil in history from the University of Oxford and has taught Big History, World History, and AP U.S. Government and Politics for the past ten years at the high school level. In addition, she has been a freelance writer and editor for the Big History Project and the Crash Course World History and U.S. History curriculums. [Sources and attributions]

The data exploration article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview – what do we have? This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what this chart is about and the information it contains. Pay attention to: Labels and titles. What is the title? How are the axes labeled? Is anything else on the chart labeled?Data representation. How many variables are there and what are they? What are the scales? What time period does the chart cover? Is the chart interactive?Data source. Where did the data for this chart come from? Do you trust it? Who created the chart? Second read: key ideas – what do we know? In this read, you will pay attention to the information that most helps you understand the chart and the information it is trying to convey. Pay attention to: Claim(s). What can you say about the data? What story does it tell? Can you make any claims about this data? Does it change when you zoom in compared to when you look at the data as a whole?Evidence. What data from the chart supports this story? Does this change if you change the scale or variables?Presentation. How does the way this chart is presented influence how you read it? Has the author selected certain variables or scales that change the conclusions that can be drawn? Is there anything missing from this chart? By the end of the second read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How are Charts 1, 2, and 3 similar? How are they different?Chart 1 shows a spike, when child labor in Italy started rising again instead of falling. Why do you think this spike occurred? Why don’t we see a similar spike in the UK or US?Charts 1 and 3 show really dramatic decreases in child labor. Why does Chart 2 not show this sort of dramatic decline?What does Chart 4 measure? Why do you think the percentages are so much higher than at the ends of Charts 1, 2, and 3?Is there anything missing from Chart 5?Why do you think Chart 5 lists “no data” for wealthy countries in Europe, North America, and elsewhere?There’s a lot of data missing from the “global” information in Charts 4 and 5. What impact does this have on our understanding of child labor? Third read: making connections – what does this tell us? The third reading is really about why the chart is important and what it can tell us about the past and help us think about the future. Pay attention to: Significance. Why does this matter? Does this impact me, and if so, how? How does it connect what is going on in the world right now? How does it relate to what was happening at the time it was created?Back to the future. How does this data compare to today? Based on what you now know, what are your thoughts on this phenomenon 25 years, 50 years, and 100 years from now? At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Why does this chart matter? What do these charts about child labor tell us about human communities since the Industrial Revolution? What do they tell us about the way humans produce things?Using these charts, make one prediction about how child labor will change in your lifetime. What evidence from the charts supports your prediction? What evidence challenges it? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Child Labor Data Introduction By Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser, adapted by Mike Papritz and Trevor R. Getz Children have always worked. During the nineteenth and twentieth century, reform movements sought to limit this, but even today, 265 million children still work. Introduction It’s estimated that globally there are around 265 million children engaged in work. This represents 17 percent of all children in the world. These figures are the latest estimates available from the International Labour Organisation’s “World Report on Child Labour,” published in 2013. In the past century, many countries have managed to virtually eliminate child labor. Today, child labor is most common in the region of sub-Saharan Africa. But there are examples of countries around the world where child labor was the norm at some time in the past. This data exploration looks at child labor from around 1850 to present in order to analyze how the prevalence of child labor has changed over time. Labor, in this case, means paid employment outside of the home. The Industrial Revolution expanded work opportunities for adults. When a country industrialized, wage labor tended to increase overall. This was true both in cities and in rural areas. But was it true for children? Analyzing child labor since the Industrial Revolution We don’t have very reliable estimates of child labor for many countries before the twentieth century. But most scholars believe that industrialization initially led to an increase in child labor. Then, during the twentieth century, child labor began to decrease. But this fall in child labor over the twentieth century was not constant. There were some events that caused child labor rates to temporarily increase for several years. For example, in some countries, the First and Second World Wars led to children reentering the workforce. Presented below in Charts 1, 2, and 3 is data for three countries where we do have good records of child labor rates—Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In all three countries, we see child labor fall dramatically over the twentieth century. In Italy, for example, child labor was very common at the beginning of the century—half of all children were employed. By the middle of the century, this number had fallen to less than 10 percent. Chart 1: Chart 2: Chart 3: Child labor today In Chart 4, you can see that on a global scale, child labor rates continue to fall today. In the year 2000, 23 percent of all children in the world were engaged in work. By 2012, this had fallen to 17 percent. This is an encouraging decline, but child labor is still common in many countries in the world. In the map below, you can see in which countries child labor remains common in the twenty-first century. Child labor can prevent children from experiencing important opportunities like going to school. Chart 4: Chart 5: Will this trend continue? What factors might be contributing to this overall decline? What could disrupt it? Author bios Esteban is Senior Researcher and Content Lead at Our World In Data, as well as executive co-director of Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization that publishes and maintains the website and the data tools that make OWID’s work possible. Esteban does research on economic development, the public sector, education, and a wide range of related topics. Esteban completed his doctoral studies at the University of Oxford (DPhil Economics). Max is the founder and director of Our World in Data. He began the project in 2011 and for several years was the sole author, until receiving funding for the formation of a team. Max’s research focuses on poverty, global health, and the distribution of incomes. He is also Programme Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development at the University of Oxford, and Co-executive Director of Global Change Data Lab, the non-profit organization that publishes and maintains the website and the data tools that make OWID’s work possible. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Why does the author argue that the relationship between capitalism and slavery has meaning today?Why, according to some theories cited by the author, does capitalism theoretically promote free rather than enslaved labor?What evidence, from the United States, is cited to support the argument that enslaved labor was an inefficient system for the owners of businesses?How does the author connect abolitionism to industrialists?What evidence does the author present that the Atlantic slave trade may have helped to stimulate industrialization and capitalism? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article claims that slavery helped create industrial capitalism and that capitalism helped to end slavery. Do you agree with both of these claims? What evidence from the article supports these claims?This article makes some surprising connections between slavery and capitalism. What are some ways that capitalism influences your daily life? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Slavery and Capitalism By Trevor R. Getz Plantation slavery and capitalism rose in the same period. Were they systems that supported each other, or did capitalism help to end plantation slavery? Or Both? Siblings or rivals? Between about the fifteenth and the eighteenth centuries, networks of production and distribution became larger and more complex than ever before. Maritime empires and large corporations like the Dutch East India Company helped to spread practices like bonds and joint-stock companies. This set the stage for the modern economic system of capitalism. The proponents of capitalism believed that free markets in goods and labor and the ability to invest money for profit would make the world a better place. This same period also saw the development of a widespread system of chattel slavery. In the Atlantic world, large numbers of people—mainly from Africa—were enslaved. European and colonial American societies considered them property, rather than people. These enslaved people were part of a capitalist economic system we call the plantation system, in which they were forced to work, without pay, in terrible conditions, in order to generate profits for people who legally owned them. These two systems—plantations and capitalism—developed and became widespread at about the same time, in about the same regions of the world. But by the late nineteenth century, slavery was criminalized across much of this region, while capitalism remains not only legal, but the dominant economic system in the world today. What was the relationship of slavery to capitalism through this period of human history? Did slavery and capitalism depend on each other for success, as some people argue? Or did capitalism help to end slavery, as others suggest? Buyers waiting to bid on enslaved humans. St. Louis, Missouri, about 160 years ago. Thomas Martin Easterly, Missouri History Museum, public domain. Historians have struggled to answer these questions in part because they have meaning for debates we have today. For example, if slavery helped to support capitalism in this early period, then it arguably contributed to the wealth that many people and companies have today, and the descendants of enslaved people have reason to demand some of that wealth back. Similarly, if capitalism helped to end slavery, then we have to give this system credit for helping to liberate people. But both of these ideas are still debated. Rival systems Let's begin by exploring the idea that capitalism and slavery were rival systems. In this view of history, plantation slavery was part of an older way of organizing labor. Then capitalism came along and defeated it. For much of the early twentieth century, almost all historians believed this to be the case. But is this an accurate narrative of the past? In theory, capitalism promotes labor done by free people, rather than slavery. One of its central principles is free markets. The idea is that without interference, a buyer and a seller will negotiate. The seller wants a high price for the goods she is selling. The buyer wants to spend as little as possible. In the end, they will come to a fair price that works for both of them. Capitalism suggests that the same is true for labor. A person should be free to ask for as much money as they can for their labor. An employer will want to pay as little as possible. Between them, they will come to a fair wage for a person's work. Slavery in the Atlantic model, of course, is not a free market. There is no pay to negotiate. The enslaved get nothing, except perhaps a poor bed, bad food, and a pittance—none of which is negotiable. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work. More to the point, historians who argue that capitalism helped end slavery note that this system makes the enslaved person unmotivated. Why work hard, offer your good ideas, or do anything to impress a boss who "owns" you and will never pay you? That's why many historians have argued that slavery was inefficient compared to a system where workers were paid wages and could negotiate for better pay or move up the ranks. In particular, U.S. historians such as Eugene Genovese and Mary Beard argued that wage workers in the industrial north of the country were more efficient than enslaved workers in the plantation south. For some of these historians, the U.S. Civil War represented a victory of capitalism over slavery. The Anti-slavery Society convention of 1840. Many British abolitionists were businessmen. Public domain. Other historians have similarly seen the abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade as a victory of capitalism over slavery. They argued that many of the owners of slave-worked plantations in the Caribbean were in fact connected to old European leadership groups, to aristocrats or nobles. Many abolitionists, by contrast, were connected to new industry. They argued that wage labor was both more efficient and morally better than slave labor. So, historians have used these two arguments to support the idea that capitalism ended slavery: First, they say wage labor was a better system and made free societies stronger than those that used enslaved labor. Second, they argue that people in capitalist, industrial societies were natural opponents of slavery. Sibling systems But it may have been that capitalism and slavery were more compatible than this evidence suggests. In addition to free markets, proponents of capitalism argue that it is important to make a profit. If people are investing money, they expect a return on their investment. Many historians have pointed out that the Atlantic slave trade was, in fact, immensely profitable. People in Britain and elsewhere invested in shares in slave trading companies and made a fortune. As historian Eric Williams and others have collectively argued, they may have used these profits to start other companies and underwrite many of the scientific and technical advances that made industrialization and the rapid spread of capitalism possible. Highly-organized, industrial-style slave labor on the island of Antigua, 1823. Public domain. Plantations that depended on the forced labor of enslaved people were also very profitable at times. A group of historians writing in the last decade, including Walter Johnson and Ed Baptist, have argued that, contrary to what earlier historians argued, slave plantations in fact helped create the modern capitalist world. Johnson focuses on cotton, one of the leading crops produced by enslaved labor in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He reminds us that cotton fed the textile machines that were among the world's leading capitalist industries in the nineteenth century. Since most of that cotton was produced by slave labor, it was slavery that made this major chunk of industrialization possible. Ed Baptist goes even further. He says that plantations growing cotton developed many of the innovations of modern industrial capitalism. These included productivity "targets" for enslaved people similar to the quotas of many modern factory workers. He also argued that enslavers developed technologies—especially punishments—that made enslaved workers productive, perhaps more productive and efficient than factory workers who were paid wages. When you add it all up, these historians argue that capitalism and slavery worked hand-in-hand, like siblings supporting each other rather than rivals. The slave trade and the plantation system created profits for capitalists and the plantation system even helped develop and inspire new industrial techniques for later capitalists. So, what to think? So, who should be believed? Clearly, there is still broad disagreement about the relationship between slavery and capitalism. Right now, more historians who work on this subject see the two as intertwined and mutually supporting each other. But this wasn't always the case, and historians in the future may not agree. Already, there are some historians who question the conclusions of scholars like Baptist and Johnson. Two economists, Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode, suggest that some of their evidence is a little thin, that they rely too much on narrative rather than big sets of data. Unfortunately, big sets of data are difficult to find for many issues, especially before modern recording and computing technology. Whatever their precise relationship, clearly slavery and capitalism existed together in the years that set the stage for the industrial world economy we have today. Both contributed to the world we live in right now. It is worth discussing and trying to understand how they each shaped our modern global economy. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African History at San Francisco State University. He has written eleven books on African and world history, including Abina and the Important Men. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: According to the author, what is society?How does the author define identity, and what does he mean when he says identity is not fixed?What was the abolitionist movement, and did it succeed?What kinds of reforms were labor reformers working for, according to the article?According to the author, had political revolutions automatically led to expanded political rights for women?Why did reformers want children to go to school, according to the author? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How do you think the author of this article views the reformers discussed in this article? Do you think that affected how he wrote the article? Why or why not? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Unit 4: Transformation of Labor and Social Relations Photo of women's suffrage protestors marching down a street holding a sign with the slogan, "To fight, to struggle, to right the wrong". By Trevor Getz Reformers created networks striving to making things better—ending slavery, improving labor conditions, liberating women, and supervising children. Not everyone benefited. One of the purposes of this course is to help you to develop a usable relationship with the world history of the past 270 years or so. The best reason to study the past is so it can inform your understanding of the present. You'll start to notice how the events and trends from 1750 to 1914, that Long Nineteenth Century, create a blueprint for the world we live in today. In terms of how we govern our societies, for example, an important line can be drawn from that period to the present. Political revolutions of liberalism and nationalism back then gave birth to the modern nation-state. That's how we got the system of citizenship governing our world today. We can similarly see how the Industrial Revolution gave us the factory system and the economy in which most people work. These big changes are really important, but let's face it—they're pretty easy to spot. Some changes in the Long Nineteenth Century are harder to see, but just as important in creating our modern world. These were changes to what we call society. By society, we don't just mean who's trending and who isn't (though that was part of it). Society in this context means a kind of network: the web of relationships defining who people are to each other. These relationships may be economic—employer to worker. They may be political—the rulers to the ruled. But even family relationships—parent to child, or between spouses—and people living in the same community saw their roles redefined. To talk about these relationships, historians sometimes start with identity —the way that people are classified by others or see themselves. In the modern world, these identities include gender, race, and social class. But importantly, none of these are entirely fixed things. Our ideas about what constitutes a race, class, or gender, or how people in those categories should act, constantly change. In the nineteenth century, they changed quite a bit. And the thing is, these identities and relationships matter. They affect how people live and how they experience the world around them. Our social identities and relationships today will set the pattern for how future generations experience life. So while it's important—and obvious—that the Long Nineteenth Century was an era of dramatic political and economic change, the less obvious revolutions in social relationships need equal attention. How did the Industrial Revolution and political revolutions help transform the way people worked, lived, and learned? How did all of these changes help make the world we live in now? In this unit, we provide some evidence to help you answer those questions. Labor reforms and emancipation First, we look at attempts to change the system under which people worked. One of the biggest struggles in this type of reform was the abolition of slavery. Even in this era, many people still felt that enslavement was an acceptable, profitable system of labor, despite clear evidence that it was an abusive, exploitive, inhumane system. Abolitionists—people who wanted to end slavery—fought long campaigns to convince the public that it should be abolished, and to some degree they succeeded. The legal status of slavery was eliminated in some countries, but something similar to slavery often remained. In other countries it stayed legal, so the abolition campaign continued. In fact, the abolitionist movement evolved over the course of the century into a battle not just to free the enslaved but to improve conditions for all workers. In the industrialized cities of this period, factory and mine jobs were dangerous, difficult, and unending. In 1750, there was no weekend, no rules to protect workers, and no health insurance for those who were hurt on the job. Conditions were equally hard in many rural, farming areas, where peasant workers labored on land owned by big landowners. Workers had to fight hard for better conditions. That struggle took decades and, in many ways, has never ended. The result was a global economic system balanced between two motives: the capitalist belief that a free market will help everyone and the socialist belief that workers must be protected and helped. The debate over which position is right, or how they can work together, still occurs in many places today. Illustration of several men crowded together, holding a political banner.Part of Diego Rivera’s “History of Mexico” mural at the National Palace in Mexico City. Emiliano Zapata (left with sombrero), Felipe Carrillo Puerto (center), and José Guadalupe Rodríquez (right with sombrero) behind banner featuring the Zapatista slogan, “Tierra y Libertad” (Land and Liberty). Public domain. Illustration of several men crowded together, holding a political banner. Part of Diego Rivera’s “History of Mexico” mural at the National Palace in Mexico City. Emiliano Zapata (left with sombrero), Felipe Carrillo Puerto (center), and José Guadalupe Rodríquez (right with sombrero) behind banner featuring the Zapatista slogan, “Tierra y Libertad” (Land and Liberty). Public domain. Gender and childhood Abolition and workers' rights dominated social movements in the Long Nineteenth Century. But these movements connected with others. The same people often worked on campaigns against slavery, to improve working conditions, and for women's rights. These connections produced networks of activists. In the second lesson of this unit, we look at attempts to reform and improve conditions for women and children in some parts of the world. In 1750, ideas about the roles women should play in society were hardening in some ways. So, for example, women were largely excluded from the benefits of political revolutions in the United States, France, and Latin America despite helping to make them happen. The fight for women's rights took a long time and was part of a broader attempt to rethink gender roles in society. There were many important achievements toward women's equality, but as with workers' rights, the fight is far from over. Just as the roles and rights of women was debated during this time, the roles and rights of children began to matter as well. Debates emerged in many societies about what it meant to be a child and how children should be treated and governed. Industrialization had put many children to work in mines, factories, and industrialized plantations. As with adults who did the same work, it was grueling and nonstop, and there were no rules against it even if you were a third grader. Also, there were no third graders because compulsory public school wasn't a thing yet. Reformers saw this and wanted to rethink childhood. They began to suggest that children should be put into schools, where they might gain enough intellectual and social knowledge for future success. There were a couple reasons for this: Reformers saw children as potentially dangerous and wanted them "off the streets." But children were also seen as the future of the nation—educating them would produce better workers, leaders, and soldiers. Changing ideas about childhood in this era, in other words, are what put you in your history classroom today. So… you're welcome? Photo of two young girls wearing a sash with the slogan "Abolish child slavery" written in both English and Yiddish.Two American children wearing banners with the slogan “abolish child slavery” in English and Yiddish at a 1909 Labor Day parade in New York City. By Bain News Service, public domain. Photo of two young girls wearing a sash with the slogan "Abolish child slavery" written in both English and Yiddish. Two American children wearing banners with the slogan “abolish child slavery” in English and Yiddish at a 1909 Labor Day parade in New York City. By Bain News Service, public domain. But of course, these changes weren't final. Gender, work, childhood, and other issues would continue to be rethought and to change after 1914. Both in the Long Nineteenth Century and beyond, these reforms were not global. They affected people differently depending on where they lived in the world, and at different times. In particular, empires sought to limit these reforms in their colonies, even when they were happening back home. We will see how this difference operated when we get to Unit 5, which focuses on imperialism and colonialism as the last theme through which we look at the Long Nineteenth Century. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]

Smith, Marx, and Keynes The New York Stock Exchange, 2009 ©Justin Guariglia/CORBIS By Daniel Adler Spanning three centuries of history, from the dawn of the industrial age to modern times, three diverse thinkers developed their own landmark theories on commerce, labor, and the global economy. Economic Thought vs. Economic Behavior “Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life,” wrote 19th-century economist Alfred Marshall. What choices do you face in the ordinary business of your life? Buying clothing, deciding what to eat, or seeking a job — all involve considerations of cost, scarcity, and tradeoffs with other options. Whether or not you think of them as such, these are economic decisions. Now extend that idea to scales beyond your individual transactions. Modern society is woven together by a complex network of individual choices with local, national, and even global implications. Economics is the field of knowledge that seeks to systematically analyze, interpret, and understand these decisions. In practice, economics is a dynamic tool used by governments, businesses, and even individuals to observe, manage, and influence how people produce and consume goods and services. The three economists profiled in this article — Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes — contributed substantially to the development of economics as a science. Nevertheless, considerations of production, distribution, choice, scarcity, and alternate uses far predate these men, to the earliest days of humankind. Ages before there was economic thought, there was economic behavior. The Economics of the Hunt In the words of economic historian Roger Backhouse, “Economics does not have a beginning or a ‘founder’; people have always thought about questions that we now consider part of economics.” The earliest humans, for example, spent lots of energy to track and kill large game, which they would then need to distribute, and which each individual would decide to conserve or use. Even without developed cultural, commercial, or legal systems, effective economic decision-making was often imperative for survival. As hunter-gatherer groups coalesced into more organized societies, decisions about distributing resources and designating jobs became more complex. For many thousands of years, it was not the communal egalitarianism of hunter-gatherer times or by the individualism of today that drove such decisions. Rather, as 20th-century economic historian Robert Heilbroner says, people worked according to “custom” (doing work that was passed down from previous generations) or “command” (working to avoid violence or other retribution). Not the blacksmith in medieval Europe, the farmer in India, nor the pyramid-building slave in Egypt worked to advance his or her own goals, dreams, or prosperity. Early economies were also marked by an ambivalent attitude toward money and the pursuit of wealth for its own sake. Writes Heilbroner, “The idea of gain...was quite foreign to the great lower and middle strata of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and medieval cultures, only scattered throughout Renaissance and Reformation times, and largely absent in the majority of Eastern civilizations” (Heilbroner, pp. 24–25). Those who worked with money (merchants, lenders, and even craftsmen with specialized skills) were often viewed suspiciously and sometimes even punished for innovating within their trades. Consequently, skills and technology advanced gradually and similar jobs and standards extended across many generations. Around 1500 CE, several drastic changes were set in motion. Overseas trade established new networks and boosted collective learning and commercialization. Globally traded currency created an easily recognizable and transferrable store of wealth and medium for exchange. Individual markets, once physical places for the simple exchange of goods, began merging to create the market system, which, according to Heilbroner, “is not just a means of exchanging goods; it is a mechanism for sustaining and maintaining an entire society” (Heilbroner, pp. 26–27). By the 1600s and 1700s, custom and command ceased to exert as much influence as the pursuit of wealth. Rather than survival, obedience, or tradition, it was “the lure of gain...[that] steered the great majority to his or her task” (Heilbroner, p. 21). It was in this era, on the verge of the Industrial Revolution, that Adam Smith lived and worked. Adam Smith When the Scotsman Adam Smith (1723–1790) was born, industrialization and a profit-driven market system were replacing custom and command-driven economic systems across Europe. These changes reflected the intellectual shift toward rationality, progress, liberty, and secularism, generally referred to as the Enlightenment. An undated etching of Adam Smith, public domain Smith studied in Glasgow, Scotland, and Oxford, England. As a professor and lecturer, private tutor to the children of European royalty, government economic adviser, and a customs commissioner for Scotland, Smith had a comprehensive understanding of economics, which was captured most powerfully in An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, better known (and referred to hereafter) as The Wealth of Nations. Composed at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, The Wealth of Nations describes a world increasingly dominated by commerce and capitalism. Here, Smith gives his observations of a visit to a pin-making factory: One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations.... [An average factory of ten workers] could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore...might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day.(The Wealth of Nations, p. 10) One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations.... [An average factory of ten workers] could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore...might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day. (The Wealth of Nations, p. 10) In other words, the division of labor enabled one man to be as much as 4,800 times more productive than if he worked alone! In addition, Smith argued that people have a natural drive to improve their own lives. This self-interest, he suggested, propels markets to satisfy individual demands by producing the goods and services people want. He called this the “invisible hand,” and wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (The Wealth of Nations, p. 20). He suggested that competition between businesses prevents exploitation of consumers by ensuring fair prices and quality products, encouraging constant economic innovation, and satisfying consumer demand. In short, competition keeps everyone honest, because customers treated unfairly by one business can always patronize another instead. Smith’s view that the complex functions of society and economy emerged, unintentionally yet effectively, from the self-interested actions of each individual must have been both reassuring and liberating to a world grasping for new means of economic, social, and political organization. It was certainly popular: the first edition of The Wealth of Nations sold out within six months. Smith’s remarkable insights not only captured his own time accurately; they also foresaw much of the economic future, which is evident in the endurance of free-market capitalism as the world’s foremost economic model for the last 200-plus years. Today, we call this arrangement “economic liberalism” (different from the “liberal” political alignment in America) and the liberalization of economies continues around the world (Balaam and Veseth, p. 48-49). Though Smith predicted many of the successes of industrial capitalism, he lived too early in the Industrial Revolution to see its worst excesses. It would take several more decades to produce a critic whose cynicism toward capitalism matched Smith’s optimism. That critic was Karl Marx. Karl Marx Karl Marx (1818–1883) was born in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, into a middle-class family in Prussia (a former German kingdom straddling parts of present-day Germany and Poland). He led a tumultuous life: he was jailed for public drunkenness as a college student; his home and personal appearance were unkempt; and he spent income frivolously, causing his family to frequently live on the brink of poverty. For most of his professional life, Marx was a writer for a variety of liberal, radical, and foreign newspapers, moving between Prussia, France, Belgium, and England because he was continually blacklisted or deported for his radical views. Karl Marx, January 1870 © adoc-photos/CORBIS Marx’s attitude toward capitalism was scathing. In an age when “the Industrial Revolution had changed the process of production into a factory system and created a new ruling class of factory owners” (Bussing-Burks, p. 85), Marx perceived injustice, inequality, and the inevitability of change. Marx and his frequent coauthor, Friedrich Engels were outraged at the hardships faced by the working classes of industrial European cities, and they channeled this anger into two monumental written works that formed the basis of modern communism: The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, and a four-volume, 2,500-page opus, Das Kapital, published in 1867. Marx’s analysis sees the “history of all...societies [as] the history of class struggle.” Marx interpreted human history as a series of eras, each defined by systems for producing goods, which created classes of rulers and the ruled. This process had already progressed from slavery to feudalism to capitalism and, in Marx’s view, would eventually lead to a classless society called communism. Why did Marx object to capitalism? He believed that “capitalists” (the owners of the machines, property, and infrastructure used to produce things) were a separate class from the workers, or “proletariat,” who own nothing but the right to sell their labor in exchange for wages. Marx theorized that capitalists, in competition with each other for profits, would squeeze as much work as possible out of the proletariat at the lowest possible price. Furthermore, competition would cause some capitalists’ firms to fail, increasing unemployment (and thus misery and poverty) among the proletariat. Innovations in technology were not necessarily positive; new machines would add to unemployment (by rendering human labor increasingly inefficient and obsolete) while also making work dull, repetitive, and alienating. Yet Marx was not altogether dismissive of capitalism, which he saw as a necessary stage for building a society’s standard of living. But in his view, the proletariat’s discontent would inevitably lead it to overthrow the ruling classes and create a more equitable society, at first socialist (wherein the state would control the economy and distribute resources more evenly) and then purely communist (a stateless, classless, egalitarian society without private property or nationality). Marx’s beliefs, theories, and predictions represent a school of thought called Marxism. International political economy professors David Balaam and Michael Veseth caution, however, that there is no definitive reading of Marx, and that “Marxism is at once a theory of economics, politics, sociology, and ethics. For some, it is also a call to action” (Balaam & Veseth, p. 73). As a call to action, Marxism was most influential in the 20th century, when it inspired various brands of revolutionary activity, including the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the rise of communist governments in China, Vietnam, and Cuba, as well as in many Eastern European and African nations. It has since fizzled out, with the U.S.S.R. collapsing in the early 1990s, China shifting toward a market-friendly economy, and smaller communist countries that depended on them adopting more market-oriented systems. As a theory, Marxism is arguably more durable. While some believe that communism’s decline disproves Marx, others draw upon his approach to critique economic phenomena on social grounds. Even as capitalism defines most of the world’s economies, Marxism remains alive in “the idea that capitalism can undergo serious scrutiny and adaptation” (Bussing-Burks, p. 95). In other words, Marx’s skepticism about capitalism initiated an ongoing conversation about its shortcomings and how it can be improved. While he was no Marxist, our third economist, John Maynard Keynes, was highly influential in confronting the dilemmas of capitalism in the early 20th century. John Maynard Keynes John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946, last name rhymes with “rains”) was born into an educated family, and during his life he worked in academia, economic publishing, private financial advising and management, currency speculation, and as an official in the British Treasury. A studio portrait of John Maynard Keynes by Gorden Anthony, late 1930s © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS While his contributions to economics were extensive, Keynes is most famous for his ideas about the Great Depression, the major economic crisis of the 20th century. The Depression’s effects were felt worldwide from roughly the early 1930s to the mid-1940s. The United States saw unemployment increase from 3 to 25 percent, a halving of the national income, and a near cessation of residential construction (Buchholz, p. 210). Keynes’s analysis of the Great Depression focused on the role of savings. In his 1936 book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes argued that excessive savings could lead to economic ruin. A weak economy made businesses hesitant or unable to make investments that created jobs. Without jobs, people had no income that, if spent, would have stimulated demand for more production. Savings increased in anticipation of economic hardship. But then savings dried up as joblessness persisted. Individual rationality (saving in hard times) led to collective irrationality (an unbreakable cycle of economic decline). Keynes believed the government should support the economy. While Keynes generally endorsed free-market capitalism, the Depression’s unique challenges required unique solutions. Keynes argued that only the government had the resources to spend the money that individual consumers and businesses could not, and so break the cycle. This approach proved relevant in the 1930s and ’40s. The New Deal government relief programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt were designed to stimulate the economy in the early 1930s, while cuts to the federal budget in the late ’30s caused an immediate economic downturn. Extensive government spending funding World War II coincided with the end of the Depression. While some Keynesian policies had mixed results, the overall picture seemed to confirm Keynes’s arguments, and until the 1970s, Keynesianism predominated American economics. The “Great Society” domestic social programs — including Medicare and education funding — reflected Keynesian thinking. So too did the establishment of many of the institutions that form the basis of international trade and finance, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. While the 1980s and ’90s saw a resurgence in “classical” economic theories closer to Smith than to Keynes, the recent “recession” presents a new opportunity to debate whether Keynesian economics are still viable. The Power of Economics Let’s return to our initial question: What choices do you face in the ordinary business of your life? Smith, Marx, and Keynes all explained how individual choices, conscious or otherwise, fit into a higher order, affecting not only those who make them but also their families, communities, countries, and even the world. Over time, many other thinkers have developed their own distinct models and agendas for explaining and managing economic activity. The power of economics lies in its ability to reveal the complex workings of society. The idea that we are all touched by economics is perhaps best summarized in a quote from Keynes himself: The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.(The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, p. 383) The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. (The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, p. 383) As society moves about the ordinary business of life, economics always hums along in the background; it is observed by some, influenced by others, yet it affects everybody. For Further Discussion Does this brief introduction to capitalism and communism give you any ideas about why capitalist economies were better at generating innovation than communist economies in the twentieth century? Share your thinking in the Questions Area below. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Fill out the Skimming for Gist section of the Three Close Reads Worksheet as you complete your first close read. As a reminder, this should be a quick process! Second read: key ideas and understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Where was the first large-scale post-abolition society created and how did it come about?When the British abolished slavery in their Caribbean colonies, to whom did the government pay compensation?How did societies in the British Caribbean continue to repress formerly enslaved people?After abolition in the US, how did the government treat African Americans? How was inequality enforced?Why did European companies abolish slavery in their African colonies? Third read: evaluating and corroborating At the end of the third close read, respond to the following questions: How does this article support, extend, or challenge the narratives you have already studied about reform movements in the long nineteenth century?Can you think of any ways in which your own society is still impacted by the history reviewed in this article? What are they? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Race and Post-Abolition Societies By Kym Morrison The abolition of the legal enslavement of human beings seems like a huge change. But changes can sometimes hide continuities like racialized inequality and exploitation. The never-ending end of slavery Globally, the legal abolition of slavery took almost two centuries. Yes, the December 1865 passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution marked one critical date in this process. However, other key moments of mass liberation around the world must be considered. These include: The 1794 French revolutionary legislation that made France the first modern empire to outlaw the right to trade and own people.The 1838 full emancipation of formerly enslaved people in the British Caribbean; the later efforts of the colonizing powers of Britain and France to abolish local slavery in West Africa.The much more recent, 1981 prohibition of legal slavery in the West African nation of Mauritania that made it the last to do so. The 1794 French revolutionary legislation that made France the first modern empire to outlaw the right to trade and own people. The 1838 full emancipation of formerly enslaved people in the British Caribbean; the later efforts of the colonizing powers of Britain and France to abolish local slavery in West Africa. The much more recent, 1981 prohibition of legal slavery in the West African nation of Mauritania that made it the last to do so. The path to freedom differed in each society, and new challenges arose in all of them. Former slaveowners, formerly enslaved people, and those people who been neither property holders nor themselves property, all attempted to reshape their communities in ways that best served their personal interests. In many cases, these groups remained in competition. In each of these societies, after abolition, newly freed people did not achieve immediate equality with the other groups. Abolition and the Haitian Revolution In 1791, during the French Revolution and its call for human rights, there was a major slave revolt in the enormously wealthy French Caribbean colony of Saint Domingue. It created the first, large-scale, post-abolition society of the modern world. The successful revolt by enslaved people against their owners and the French government led to the independent Republic of Haiti in 1804. But Western nations, such as Britain, France, and the United States, punished this rebelliousness by keeping Haiti isolated. The leaders of these countries believed in their racial superiority, but they also feared that enslaved people would be inspired by the example of Haiti and rise up in their own territories. As a result, Haiti was cut off from international trade that would have promoted the development of its economy. Haitians struggled as subsistence farmers living in extreme poverty. Formerly enslaved Haitians had won their freedom, but they had not gained respect from, or economic inclusion into, the rest of the world. Haiti was even invaded and occupied by the United States in 1917. In addition, the French government forced Haiti to pay the equivalent of $21 billion dollars in exchange for recognizing the new country, impoverishing it for generations. It took Haiti 122 years to pay off this debt. A depiction of the French practice of mass drownings during the Haitian Revolution. From the Library of Congress, fair use. A cartoon from 1980 shows U.S. Coast Guard officers telling Haitian refugees drifting in a small boat they are the wrong kind of huddled masses. From the Library of Congress, fair use. Abolition with compensation in the British Caribbean Abolition in the British empire, and especially its Caribbean colonies, was not the result of war. It was a peaceful process in which British Christians—both Black and white—placed humanitarian pressure on their government. They managed to convince the British public that the morality of ending slavery outweighed the sharp fall in profits from colonial plantations that would come with the loss of enslaved labor. In 1833 the British Parliament passed a law abolishing slavery in Britain’s colonies. However, formerly enslaved people were still forced to remain as “apprentices” to their former owners for several years. The intention of this apprenticeship was to allow a gradual adjustment for both sides. Missionaries encouraged Christianity among the newly freed. The British government also provided financial compensation to former slaveholders for the loss of the wealth associated with holding people as property. British taxpayers paid this debt right up to 2015. Amazingly, no such compensation was considered for freed people, despite the years of free labor they had provided. They now had to fend for themselves, with almost no resources. In most British colonies, land and jobs were scarce, so most still had to work on plantations. They now earned wages, but planters paid them barely enough to survive. In the few colonies where land was readily available, like Belize or Jamaica, freed people claimed it for themselves and lived on the food they grew. Even here, however, planters tried to force these workers back onto the plantations by creating vagrancy laws that regulated their time and geographic movements. When these laws were not enough, planters imported indentured workers from British colonies in Asia. These new migrant laborers received land, while former slaves did not. And unlike the Haitian rebels who had overthrown both slavery and foreign, colonial control, these societies remained under British colonial authority, with no right to define their own government, well into the twentieth century. Abolition, government aid, and violence in the US When the US Civil War began in 1861, it was not with the intention of ending slavery. Yet, abolition was one result of the war. The process of abolition began when enslaved people liberated themselves by running away in the chaos of the war. Northern Union forces also purposefully weakened the Confederacy by encouraging enslaved people to run away. The short-lived Freedmen’s Bureau (formally entitled the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands) was established during the war, under the control of the Union Army. Its initial purpose was to track this escaped property, or “contraband” as runaways were called. Full legal freedom did not come until months after the war ended. By December 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment received votes from enough states to add it to the Constitution. It states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” This freedom had an important exception: people who had been convicted of a crime could still essentially be treated as slaves. During the Reconstruction period, federal forces provided some protection to newly freed people against the racial hatred that continued in the South. For example, federal officials built schools for freed people, assisted them in understanding paid labor contracts, and guarded their voting rights. Although federal assistance was limited, it was exceptional in comparison with other former slave societies where freed people received no assistance and were given nothing but the concept of freedom. However, with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the “Jim Crow” period, it got a lot easier to marginalize (oppress/exclude) African Americans both politically and economically. Governments, groups, and individuals inflicted a great deal of racial violence against African Americans. As workers, their wages remained low. Some attempted to become independent farmers on rented land. But with limited education—and faced with the corrupt practices of white landowners—many fell into inescapable financial debt. As state and local governments in the American South purposefully denied them access to voting rights and public office, African Americans had little political power to enact change. White society kept African Americans under near constant scrutiny. Police, employers, and the general population all participated in this system. Local southern governments enacted laws to limit African American freedom and control their labor. Remember that part of the Thirteenth Amendment that allowed people convicted of a crime to be treated as if they were slaves? Well, companies who wanted cheap labor found ways to use that clause for their own profit. Many African Americans were imprisoned for the smallest reasons and sent to prison labor camps. Methods of controlling African Americans also took more violent forms. Murder and lynching were commonly used to create fear and ensure submission. Lynchings often drew audiences of southern or midwestern whites, who viewed them as entertainment. Poverty, imprisonment, and government-sponsored violence developed in the late nineteenth century marked the relationship between African Americans and the rest of the nation—and in some ways the pattern continues today. African-American child “convicts” in the post-abolition period. From the Library of Congress, public domain. Later African abolition Abolition also occurred in other areas of the world. In Africa, slavery had become more common during the era of the Atlantic slave trade. It had then expanded in the nineteenth century to serve plantation economies mostly growing tropical goods to serve European demand. Here, abolition came mostly as the result of outside forces. As they colonized African societies in the late nineteenth century, Europeans brought their views on race and power. European companies felt they could profit more from low-earning, African wage laborers than from the military force it would take to enslave and control Africans on their own soil. So, under European colonial authority, slavery was criminalized in their African colonies. However, the colonial authorities often failed to enforce these laws, and slavery remained a common practice in many areas. Even after its independence from France in 1960, the African nation Mauritania did not fully criminalize slavery until 1981. No matter when slavery was officially ended in African countries, those who were freed continued to be marginalized, not by race as in the West, but instead frequently by African distinctions of ethnicity or lineage. Common patterns Freedom simply meant the legal end of slavery. It was a necessary first step for the inclusion of formerly enslaved people into post-abolition societies. However, freedom did not come with automatic acceptance or equality. Based on race and other forms of social difference, newly freed people did not gain the rights that were available to the dominant members of their communities. They entered freedom with nothing, and usually struggled just to survive. In truth, post-abolition societies often placed new restrictions on the formerly enslaved. New laws were passed to maintain control over their labor. Government officials watched for the slightest reason to imprison them and government-approved violence was a common tool for limiting their freedom. In many places, systems of incarceration and racism meant there was a great deal of continuity in the experience of formerly enslaved people. The formerly enslaved and their descendants had to continue the fight for equality long after the legal abolition of slavery. Freedom was not freely given. In many parts of the world, the struggle to overcome those systems continues today. Author bio Karen Y. Morrison, “Kym,” is a social historian of Latin America and the African diaspora. She teaches at San Francisco State University and has published in Cuban Studies/Estudios Cubanos, the Journal of Social History, Abolition & Slavery, the Encyclopedia of the Modern World, and in the anthology, Africans to Spanish America. Her first book was Cuba’s Racial Crucible: The Sexual Economy of Social Identities, 1750-2000 (2015). She was a Fulbright Research Scholar in Brazil for the 2015–2016 academic year. There Professor Morrison has begun a second book project, which explores the connections between Black pride, racial hybridity, and whitening in post-abolition Rio de Janeiro. [Sources and attribution]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What inspired different groups of social reformers beginning in the United States and Britain, in the Long Nineteenth Century?How did Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s experiences as abolitionists lead them to become advocates for the rights of women?What were some important outcomes of the investigation into the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company?What did Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle reveal to many Americans, and what was one result of their outcry?Jacob Riis wrote about terrible conditions in New York’s Tenements. To what reforms did his book contribute?Stephen Smith connected unsanitary conditions to the spread of typhus and cholera. What kinds of reforms resulted from work like his?What kinds of reforms, across this period, affected children’s lives in particular? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article identifies the United States (and in particular New York City) and Great Britain as centers for this type of social reforming in the Long Nineteenth Century. Why do you think people living in these places often led reform movements? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Responses to Industrialization By Rachael Hill The Industrial Revolution led to rapid changes in people's living and working conditions. In response to poor working conditions, labor movements organized alliances known as unions and pushed for reforms. Reform movements happened around the world but started in Britain and the United States. They focused on labor rights, social welfare, women's rights, and working to end slavery. The Industrial Revolution brought major changes to societies. These changes began in Great Britain and the United States before spreading to other parts of the world, and this particular article will focus on those two societies as case studies. Other articles will take a more global view. In particular, this article focuses on the rise of reformers as a response to industrialization. While wealthy industrialists and the emerging middle class often lived in nice houses and could afford the new goods being pumped out by factories, most of the workers who made those goods struggled to make ends meet. They lived in crowded tenement houses, which were apartment buildings with tiny rooms, no ventilation, and poor sanitation.1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript Some people became concerned: These new living and working conditions created social problems. In the United States and Great Britain, citizens pressured their governments to reform (improve) society. They wanted the government to help the urban poor, fix unsafe work conditions, end child labor, and repair poor sanitation. In the United States and Great Britain, reformers were often inspired by a new form of Christianity. This wave of Christianity became popular in the nineteenth century. Called evangelical Christianity, it emphasized that individuals had the power to change their lives. They could ensure their own salvation and improve their communities. Some historians argue that evangelical Christianity was democratic because it focused on the power of the individual. Evangelical Christianity valued the individual's own religious experience over the learning and authority of the clergy. Therefore, it provided inspiration for ordinary people who wanted to create change in society. But not all reformers were inspired by Christianity. Journalists, union activists, workers, and women may also have been motivated by Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equal rights, and separation of church and state. Women’s rights Women were very active in reform movements. Many were influenced by the renewed interest in Christianity that was inspiring a wave of social activism. For example, many women participated in the movement to abolish slavery. That movement was grounded in new evangelical Christian ideas about the equality of all people before God. However, women were often not allowed to engage in public debates or speak at anti-slavery conventions. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were denied the right to speak at the 1840 anti-slavery convention in London. So they decided to form a society to advocate for the rights of women. An important American group that mixed anti-slavery and women's rights activism was the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society, led by Mott and the women of a leading African American family—Charlotte, Harriet, Sarah, and Margaretta Forten. Cartoon of a women's rights convention showing male opponents trying to disrupt the convention from the balconies. Public domain. Many of the same biblical passages that women abolitionists used to argue against slavery could also be used to support the equality of women. In 1848, the first American convention focused on women's rights was held in Seneca Falls, New York. Approximately 200 women and 40 men met and adopted the "Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments." This declaration called for political and economic rights for women. However, it would take 70 more years for women to gain the right to vote in the United States, and progress was equally slow in most other parts of the world. Labor reforms Working conditions and the ability to make enough money to survive were problems with industrialization that many people identified early. In Britain, the Luddites were a secret society that destroyed new industrial machines in the 1810s. Many of them were skilled artisans who saw machines replacing them. The machines could make cheaper cloth, or metal, than an artisan. Also, artisans were generally decently paid, but they were being forced to become poorly paid factory workers. So, across Britain and in particular, in the industrialized north, they smashed machines and threatened factory owners until the army put them down. Women were also active in the labor movement. Pauline Newman started working at a garment factory called the Triangle Shirtwaist Company in New York City when she was a child. She became a union organizer and actively campaigned for worker safety in Philadelphia. It was there in 1911 that the Triangle Shirtwaist factory burst into flames. It was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history. The fire resulted in the deaths of 146 garment workers. Most of these workers were recent Italian and Jewish immigrant women ages 14 to 23. Pauline Newman, having worked at the factory for many years, was friends with many of the victims. When the state of New York established the Factory Investigation Commission (FIC) to inspect shops and guarantee workers' safety, Newman became one of the FIC's first inspectors. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards. This period saw the growth of unions that fought for better working conditions for factory workers. Demonstration of Protest and Mourning for Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of March 25, 1911. The U.S. National Archives, Public domain. It was not only the workers themselves pushing for labor reforms. Journalists also wrote articles exposing the problems that existed in American factories. Author Upton Sinclair hoped to show the American public the horrible effects of capitalism on workers in the Chicago meatpacking industry. His book, "The Jungle," described how workers lost their limbs, were exposed to dangerous chemicals, and caught infectious diseases while working long hours in cold, cramped conditions. He hoped that this would lead to labor reforms. However, Sinclair's vivid descriptions of the industry did not immediately lead to labor legislation. But public outcry did lead to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906. Two officials inspect a tenement in New York City, 1901. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public domain. Housing Journalists also played an important role in exposing the poor housing that many urban factory workers lived in. These often included tenements—crowded buildings, often hastily put up and with few toilets—where large families often shared tiny apartments. Glasgow, in Scotland (northern Britain), was one of the first cities to have large tenements, meant to house workers in the industrial dockyards. Because they were cheap housing, they soon spread. Jacob Riis, a Danish-born American journalist wrote about the terrible conditions in New York City's tenements. He wanted to influence public opinion and get the city's government to create new housing designs to ease crowding and improve safety. Riis' book, "How the Other Half Lives" (1890), described how as many as 12 adults slept in a room that was only 13 feet across. Riis wrote that the infant death rate in these tenements was as high as 1 in 10. Following his reports, the city conducted studies of tenements. In 1901, city officials passed the Tenement House Law. This set higher standards for safety and sanitation in the tenements. Some of the improvements included higher quality construction materials, mandatory fire escapes, and more windows in order to give residents access to air and light. Public Health Reformers also became concerned with public health during this period. One of the first Industrial-era health reforms was the building of sewers and clean water systems in some British cities. Thomas Hawksley built some of the first urban clean water systems in Britain in the 1870s. He figured out that hooking up pipes to a pump and an engine would keep pressure in the water system. This would stop dirty water from getting into the pipes. In London, meanwhile, the disease known as cholera killed tens of thousands of people each year until Joseph Bazalgette figured out that a sewer system could keep the water supply cleaner. New York physician Stephen Smith was similarly concerned with the unhealthy environment in American cities. He was the first to link the spread of typhus and cholera to the unsanitary conditions in New York City. He was gravely concerned about the negative impact the city environment had on human health. As a result, he organized and directed a sanitary survey of the city. The survey described overflowing public toilets, streets filled with horse manure, and unhygienic slaughterhouses. Smith testified before the New York Senate and Assembly. One year later, New York passed the first public health legislation in the country. Smith's work in New York served as a model for other cities. Soon after, Chicago and Boston followed suit. Public health reformers all over the United States began to pressure their local governments. By 1875, a new Public Health Act ensured the government was responsible for making sure drinking water was safe, sewage waste properly managed, and contagious disease contained. Education Reformers were also concerned about the well-being of children during this time. Many children worked in factories instead of attending school. Due to workers' low wages, an entire family would have to work in order for a family to afford food and rent. This included small children. The British Parliament set up a commission in 1832 to investigate child labor in factories. As a result, the government passed The Factory Act of 1833. It regulated excessive child labor and set limits on how many hours per day children could work. This was the first British government regulation of the industrial workplace. By the 1880s the government made education mandatory for all children ages 5 to 10. Around the same time, the United States established free elementary education in every state. However, the U.S. did not pass a federal law restricting child labor until 1916. Reform efforts during this time gave birth to a number of important changes in the United States and Great Britain. These included mandatory public education, child labor laws, and eight-hour workdays. Reforms also addressed minimum wage, compensation for workplace accidents, and improved sanitation infrastructure. These reforms laid the groundwork for later twentieth-century social justice movements like the civil rights and feminist movements and influenced reform movements in other regions of the world. [Notes] Author bio Rachael Hill holds a Ph.D. in African History from Stanford University. She is currently a visiting assistant professor at San Francisco State University. She has taught History Methodology and African History at the university level and Critical Reading to high school students. Her research focuses on the history of traditional medicine and medicinal plant research in 20th-century Ethiopia. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: How did people in Southeast Asia use corn and cassava as tools of resistance?What does the author argue were some of the goals of colonial subjects?How did some inhabitants of Hanoi use rats as tools of resistance?How did French education in Indochina backfire in some ways, according to the author?How and why did some aristocrats in the Dutch East Indies try to accommodate Dutch rule?Why was stealing a curtain an act of resistance by Raden Mas Adipati?What were some strategies that people in the Southeast Asian highlands used to avoid taxation and labor? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: The author of this article lists many types of actions and activities as acts of resistance. Do you agree that these were all acts of resistance? What does resistance mean to you?Think about the people in this article using the communities frame. What were their goals? Were they trying to build new communities? Maintain old ones? Resist imperial communities? Or do something different? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Responses to Industrial Imperialism By Eman M. Elshaikh When confronting imperial power, people responded in creative ways that go beyond collaboration and resistance. Local knowledge and customs enabled some to resist imperialism with invisible yet effective tactics. The anti-imperialist vegetable The struggle against imperialism conjures images of weapons and uprisings. Foods like corn or cassava usually aren't in the picture, but we'll soon find out why they should be. The thing is that while armed struggles were forms of resistance to empire, they really weren't all that common in the modern period. New imperial powers had greater technologies and deadlier weapons, and colonized peoples—mostly peasants—couldn't fight them. At least not with weapons. There were subtle ways to resist empire, and corn and cassava1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript were two of them. Colonial states relied on income from fixed farming areas—that is, the farm and its workers stayed in one place. The imperial powers wanted to maximize farming output and export crops to make profits. By using the forced labor of indigenous people that stayed in one place, production costs stayed low. Crop illustration diagram for cassava plant, also called yuca in some regions. By the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, CC BY-NC 2.0. But that all unravels when those local populations don't stay put. After all, they weren't getting any of the profits and only needed enough food for themselves. Crops like corn and cassava grow in a way that allowed growers to move around. Indigenous people sometimes migrated and changed their farming patterns to evade colonial oppression. Cassava, in particular, made this easier because it required relatively little labor for a pretty big return. Mobile groups could plant cassava and pretty much just walk away. A couple of years later, a community could come back and dig it up the high- calorie tubers (it's kind of like a potato). They could also eat the leaves in the meantime. Cassava gave indigenous people a cheap, easy way to feed themselves while resisting colonial systems of forced labor. Colonizers tried to brand cassava and corn as "lazy" crops for natives who wanted to avoid work—but these crops helped them resist empire. Like activists. Aggressive and bloody? No. Effective and more common? Definitely. Let's contextualize with the many different ways people responded to imperialism. Anti-imperialism before decolonization In the late nineteenth century, most of southeast Asia came under either British, French, or Dutch control. This imperialism disrupted existing lives and societies affecting both empires and their subjects. It got very messy! Colonizers controlled wealth, status, and survival, so people had to be careful and strategic about how they engaged with imperial power. But the people of the colonies—the "colonial subjects"—had some ability to shape their own lives. More than individual survival, they also wanted to maintain their dignity and culture. The case studies in this article will show how some communities in Southeast Asia responded to the new, industrial imperialism that began in the late nineteenth century. European colonization of Southeast Asia. Legend: France (French Indochina) Netherlands (Dutch East Indies) Portugal (Portuguese Timor) United Kingdom (British Burma, Malaya and Borneo) Spain (Spanish East Indies)By Rumilo Santiago, CC BY-SA 4.0. French Indochina French Indochina was the colonial name for French-occupied areas in Southeast Asia. In the late nineteenth century, the French invaded the places now called Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. European missionaries and merchants had already established some presence there. But colonial maps can be misleading; conquering a territory is not the same as truly controlling it. Although the local royal families technically accepted colonial rule, the French were met with constant mutinies and peasant uprisings, which are easily recognizable as resistance. Others—and that was most people—just tried to survive and thrive within a difficult system. For instance, many Laotian villagers pretended to collaborate with the French while resisting at the same time. The French believed they were using local leaders to control villages, a key strategy in colonial empire-building. But the villages often put fake notables forward, who had no real power. Meanwhile, the real leaders secretly ran villages according Laotian interests, rather than what the empire wanted. The French had no clue. Saigon Governor's Palace about 1875], later renamed Norodom Palace after Norodom of Cambodia, who signed a treaty agreeing to French protection. Public domain. Another example comes from the city of Hanoi, where French construction projects like sewers brought in large numbers of rats. The French decided to pay the locals to kill the rats, and give them a small amount of money per rat that they killed. They just had to bring the tail in as proof. People in Hanoi started clipping live rats' tails and releasing them back into the sewers to breed. The rat population grew, and the high number of tails coming in broke the colony's treasury, leaving the French with an even worse rat problem! But not everybody resisted French rule. Some minority groups, like the small Christian population, saw French rule as a way to get ahead, especially by joining the military. Others felt so oppressed by colonial rule that instead of resisting, they left. They followed a long pattern in the region of people fleeing the valleys and deltas for the hills and mountains, which were more difficult for the imperial government to get to. As with the cassava example earlier, deep local knowledge of the environment was an advantage the French didn't have. Even the French education policy backfired somewhat. It tried to make Southeast Asians embrace French values and culture. It worked to some extent, but it also gave many indigenous peoples intellectual tools to resist French imperialism. Colonial subjects formed networks and shared new ideas about revolution and resistance. Two great examples are Nguyen Thai Hoc, who founded the Vietnamese Nationalist Party in 1927, and Vo Nguyen Giap, who led the Vietnamese in battle against the French in 1954—both were products of French education. Map of French Indochina. National Museum of the United States Air Force. Võ Nguyên Giáp and Phạm Văn Đồng in Hà Nội, 1945. Public domain. Dutch East Indies Just like French Indochina, Dutch colonialism in Southeast Asia began with commercial activity, in the form of the Dutch East India company. But both the company and the Dutch government struggled to control this very diverse region. In Java2^22squared the Dutch tried to recruit Javanese aristocrats as leaders who would serve them, just like the French did in Indochina. These aristocrats accepted Dutch political rule, but got to keep some wealth and their elaborate ceremonies and court life. Other people, including those of lower social status, could gain some political rights in various ways. Many learned to speak Dutch, converted to Christianity, or adopted Dutch customs. These are examples of accommodation, where people adapt to colonial rule and even benefit from it, but without entirely giving up their own culture or values. But some Javanese aristocrats didn't love this, like Raden Mas Adipati Brotodiningrat. His name translates to "Esteemed Golden Lord Who Performs the Most Noble Meditation in the World". But this guy is remembered less for his meditation skills and more for stealing a curtain from a Dutch colonizer. That might seem like a low-level crime, but it was politically charged. The curtain he snatched was used in a symbolic way to maintain privacy and separation between the colonizer and the colonized. By removing it, Brotodiningrat signaled that the Dutch had not earned his respect and held no real authority over him. A heated court battle followed this minor crime, giving Brotodiningrat's act of disobedience great publicity. This inspired aristocrats and others to fundamentally question colonialism and its morality. Map of the Dutch East Indies showing its territorial expansion from 1800 to its fullest extent prior to Japanese occupation in 1942. By Red4tribe, CC BY-SA 3.0. Religious and spiritual beliefs also helped people subtly resist colonial rule. There was a large revival of Islam in this period, for example. Muslims were making their annual pilgrimage to Mecca—called the Hajj—in growing numbers, thanks to European transportation. Other local systems of belief revolved around mystics and holy people. What these all had in common is that they celebrated a higher authority than the colonial government. A Javanese aristocratic woman. National Museum of World Cultures, CC BY-SA 3.0. As in Indochina, Javanese peasants dodged colonial oppression by moving around or leaving. This was an important weapon used by otherwise powerless people. Peasants moved between Javanese and Dutch ruled areas. They understood that staying in one place long enough to be counted might trap them into forced labor and high taxes. They also resisted colonial regulations by purposely failing to comply, such as inaccurately reporting on land or crop yields. Javanese children studying the Quran during the Dutch colonial period. National Museum of World Cultures, CC BY-SA 3.0. The Southeast Asian Highlands As we saw, in both Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, people moved around, challenged authority, and failed to comply with colonial rules. But the Southeast Asian highlands are perhaps the strongest example of resistance to colonial rule. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the British pushed into Burma, Malaya, and Borneo, but they and other colonial powers had a lot of trouble controlling the people living in the hilly regions of Southeast Asia. These communities were incredibly mobile and were dispersed across a highland region roughly the size of Europe! Like their Southeast Asian neighbors, many indigenous people here moved around to avoid taxation and forced labor. They resisted being included in colonial censuses3^33cubed, colonial writing, and record-keeping in general. It was a kind of an "if you can't count me, you can't rule me" strategy. By some reports, peasants even vandalized or burned down offices of official records. Unlike their Southeast Asian neighbors, these communities were more nomadic and loosely organized. Colonizers found it hard to pin down local leaders or aristocrats who would work for them. So over time, the British switched tactics. They tried to imitate the local custom of community gatherings around elaborate feasts, where resources and political concerns were exchanged. The British paid for a few of these big parties in an effort to win favor and establish more colonial ties, but the locals resisted by simply not showing up. Instead, they had their own smaller gatherings. The Southeast Asian Massif (in red) and part of the Himalayan Massif (in yellow). Jean Michaud, Journal of Global History, public domain. Creative resistance In these case studies, we've seen how colonized people engaged with empire. But even when these techniques weren't available, they found ways to voice their attitudes. The English writer George Orwell, when describing the occupation of Burma, noted that indigenous people communicated their disapproval anonymously or ambiguously. They would cause accidents by spitting at or tripping British colonizers, or they might laugh and insult them from far enough away to remain anonymous. Additionally, colonized people often created secret channels using special language codes, inside jokes, or satire to share their feelings of dissent. People were incredibly creative in how they worked with or resisted imperial power. Large rebellions are easily recorded in history, but these subtler forms of resistance are—by design—much more "off the record". To learn about them, historians have to read the sources differently, or find new sources—though written ones are rare. Indeed, colonized people often expressed themselves in ways that weren't easily understood by colonial powers and are still largely misunderstood by contemporary scholars. [Notes] Author bio The author of this article is Eman M. Elshaikh. She is a writer, researcher, and teacher who has taught K-12 and undergraduates in the United States and in the Middle East and written for many different audiences. She teaches writing at the University of Chicago, where she also completed her master’s in social sciences and is currently pursuing her PhD. She was previously a World History Fellow at Khan Academy, where she worked closely with the College Board to develop curriculum for AP World History. [Sources and attributions]

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: Who ruled much of India in 1857?What was the doctrine of lapse?Where did most of the East India Company’s soldiers come from? How did the EIC treat them?What was the “spark that lit the fire” for the 1857 uprising?What, according to the author, were some of the other explanations for the uprising?What was the outcome of the uprising? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: Why does it matter whether historians call the 1857 uprising a “mutiny,” a “revolt,” or a “war of independence”? Why do titles matter?This revolt failed, but some historians think that it was the beginning of the Indian national independence movement. Why do you think the memory of this revolt would have lived on in the minds of Indians living under direct British rule? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. 1857 Indian Uprising Photo of British soldiers performing executions. In the photo, those sentenced to death are shown strapped to the barrel of a large cannon. By Whitney Howarth In 1857, uprisings and rebellions ended the British East India Company's (EIC) control in India, then it became an official British colony. Historians continue to debate the nature of these uprisings. In 1783, Great Britain, stinging from the American Revolution and loss of 13 promising colonies, took a closer look at the Indian subcontinent. The British East India Company (EIC) intensified its efforts to collect taxes and dominate territories in this vast, populous region. Sometimes simply called "the Company" the EIC was indeed a business that did international trade. But it also conquered and ruled over an increasing number of Mughal territories and independent princely states, so its "business" was pretty much imperialism. Under a policy called the Doctrine of Lapse, the EIC took control over more than 25 states in India in the 1800s. This policy meant that if the British deemed the rulers of those states "incompetent," or if they lacked a proper heir, the EIC could just take over the territory and rule it directly themselves. Any resistance to EIC control was met with a military response. That included British troops as well as thousands of locally recruited Indian troops called sepoys. Let's look at the expansion of British control on the Indian subcontinent and the differing perspectives of the 1857 uprising by Indians against "the Company." Sepoy soldiers If you were a young man in India needing an honest job that paid well, joining the Company army as a sepoy would have been appealing. However, once employed you would soon be faced with racial discrimination and your religious beliefs would be challenged by EIC policies. Whether Muslim or Hindu, you and your fellow sepoys would be expected to adapt your religions and culture to the needs of the army. Also, you could forget about ever being promoted to higher ranks in the army, because only your British co-workers would get those jobs. Sepoys helped expand the domination of the East India Company across South Asia and were shipped abroad to expand the British Empire overseas. By the 1800s, the Mughal Empire was a much smaller and weaker state, whose authority was recognized only by some princes and local governors. Most stopped supporting the Mughal army and paying taxes. The central authority of the Mughals was so weak they could offer little resistance to the East India Company and its increasingly massive sepoy army. By the mid-1800s, many Indians, including a number of sepoys, were frustrated with living under EIC control. Excessive taxation, mismanagement, racist regulations, and the continuing disrespect for local and religious customs were becoming intolerable. In 1857, a series of uprisings broke out in and around several military stations. These rebellions expressed various outrages that had troubled many communities for decades. The spark that lit the fire The first of these uprisings was in May 1857, at a cantonment (military station) called Meerut, 40 miles outside the capital city of Delhi. Interestingly, the most heated issue—among many—had to do with how you loaded your gun. Stories had been spreading that the new bullet cartridges for their new Enfield rifles were being greased with animal fat derived from pigs and cows. The greased cartridges had to be opened by biting off the top with your teeth. However, nearly every sepoy was either Muslim—a religion that forbids eating the fat or any other part of a pig, or Hindu—where the same rule applies to cows. The British in India had long showed insensitivity for cultural and religious traditions, and that disturbed both the sepoys and civilians. Many worried that the foreigners wanted to forcibly convert them to Christianity. When some of the sepoys, in religious observation, disobeyed orders to sink their teeth into the fat-greased ammunition, they were sentence to prison. As several sepoys rose up to free their comrades, some British officers were killed. Violence quickly spread and several European women and children were also killed. Crowds in Meerut attacked and killed off-duty military officers as well as several non-British servants who tried to protect their British masters. The next day, the sepoys reached Delhi and mobbed the British arsenal and the home of former Mughal Emperor. Rebel soldiers and anti-British civilians called for the reinstatement of the old Mughal Emperor who reluctantly agreed to their demands. News spread fast, inspiring more mutinies in other garrison1^11start superscript, 1, end superscript towns and disturbances in districts across the north and northeast of India. By the end, over 50,000 sepoys had died or were executed later, whether or not they were guilty of participating in the revolt. Another 100,000 civilians were killed by British efforts to put down the rebellion and take revenge. The chaos that followed also contributed to a major famine that killed even more people. Engraving of Indian soldiers divvying up the many goods they forcibly won. The soldiers are shown still fighting over the riches and spoils, their swords and guns drawn and pointed at each other.English engraving from 1857 showing mutinous sepoys dividing up spoils. Public domain. Engraving of Indian soldiers divvying up the many goods they forcibly won. The soldiers are shown still fighting over the riches and spoils, their swords and guns drawn and pointed at each other. English engraving from 1857 showing mutinous sepoys dividing up spoils. Public domain. That doesn't mean all of India was rebelling. Many sepoys and garrisons remained loyal to the British and helped to put down the rebellion while supporting British troops that were shipped in. From Punjab to Nepal, people of different religions and languages joined the rebellion. When the Mughal emperor's sons were captured by the British outside Delhi, they were executed without a trial. These and other atrocities of vengeance continued across India as the British sought to punish rebels and terrify communities that had sheltered them. The British sought to create a campaign of fear and terror to make sure no one would challenge British authority again. It took a full year for the British to put down the revolt and re-establish its control over Indian society. By 1858, the East India Company no longer governed India and the East India Company was dissolved by the British. The British Queen Victoria became the sole sovereign of the subcontinent and India became an official colony of the British Empire for nearly 100 more years. Mutiny, revolt, or war of independence? The revolts that took place in 1857-1858 continue to interest historians. Many debate the causes, consequences, and what to even call these events. Was it a war for independence by the Indians? A mutiny of sepoy soldiers against the British? A larger rebellion against the East India Company and Great Britain? Each answer represents a point of view. Cartoon drawing of Britannia, a female warrior and the national personification of Britain, stomping on Indian natives in an attempt to subdue their uprising.A political cartoon from the British magazine Punch from 1857 showing the British perspective of the 1857 uprising with “Britannia”—representing Great Britain—killing the natives, justice as revenge! Public domain. Cartoon drawing of Britannia, a female warrior and the national personification of Britain, stomping on Indian natives in an attempt to subdue their uprising. A political cartoon from the British magazine Punch from 1857 showing the British perspective of the 1857 uprising with “Britannia”—representing Great Britain—killing the natives, justice as revenge! Public domain. Some Indian nationalists say this was an organized revolution to gain independence from British rule. It was seen as a singular revolt of colonial subjects against foreign imperialists. However, many scholars of Indian history see these events differently, arguing that India wasn't a nation yet. It had never been a fully unified state with a singular system of government nor was there a common national identity with well-defined boundaries. We know that there were many reasons people rebelled against the British EIC. Some fought to protect the markets of cotton cloth weavers, some fought to end the heavy tax burdens for landlords, and still others fought in response to new land laws which forced the eviction of poor peasants from lands. Some rebels also fought to stop the annexation of their princely states—the "doctrine of lapse" referred to in the introduction—while others fought to cease the increasing influence of Christian missionaries. In fact, scholars have long debated the role of religion in the events of 1857. While most agree that this uprising was not motivated by religious freedom, religion still mattered. One group of rebels put forth a proclamation in August of 1857 asking Hindus and Muslims to join together. The plan was to overthrow the British and re-instate Mughal imperial authority. At the same time, the British failed to acknowledge the widespread economic problems caused by de-industrialization. This was the process by which, under British rule, India began to produce less and have fewer jobs in manufacturing, while at the same time Britain was industrializing rapidly. This lack of jobs led to great suffering across the region. In addition, British responses to the uprising were often racist, characterizing Indian troops as inferior and violent. British accounts from the period tended to paint Hindus and Muslims as religious fanatics, and also regarded Indian violence as a primitive impulse, rather than a response to oppression. British sources—both then and now—often refer to the 1857 events as The Sepoy Mutiny. They focus primarily on the discontent of sepoys in the East India Company army and their rebellion against their commanding officers. While these explanations usually do acknowledge that some peasants and landlords supported the rebel troops, they generally frame these events as a military matter that impacted a few others. Outcomes and legacies Although the East India Company lost its authority in India and was later dissolved, the racial abuses and economic hardships that Indians experienced did not improve. Britain would continue its rule, but no longer through the EIC. Queen Victoria issued a proclamation to the peoples and princes of India in 1858 promising no further interference in religious traditions or matters relating to succession. Nevertheless, the British continued to distrust native peoples, especially Muslims, whom they blamed for the rebellion. This led the new governing authorities to create policies that insured inequality and supported racist justifications for colonial rule, or more accurately, misrule. Communities who had remained loyal in 1857 were labeled "martial races" by the British government and recruited heavily for the Indian Army. Yet they were not given much independence in the ranks, and were always under the authority of a larger number of British officers. Most Indians were kept from advancing into higher posts within the military and civilian services. The British created a new system of urban planning that focused on the segregation of whites from native people. The bureaucracy of the state was expanded with new government offices and more policing, surveillance, and regulation of native peoples. In the years to come, Western-educated native elites would struggle for recognition and representation within the military and civil service. The British were hesitant to give representation or autonomy to people they deemed "savage" at worst, and at best "unworthy" of self-governance. [Notes] Author bio Whitney Howarth, is an Associate Professor of History at Plymouth State University where she specializes in modern world history and the history of India. Dr. Howarth has taught world history at the college level since 1999 and was, for nearly a decade, a research fellow at Northeastern’s World History Center, where she assisted in the research, design and creation of professional development programs for high school world history teachers, hosted seminars by top world historical scholars, and produced multi-media publications (1995-2004). [Sources and attributions]

The Graphic Biography below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: skimming for gist This will be your quickest read. It should help you get the general idea of what the graphic biography will be about. Pay attention to the title, headings, images, and layout. Ask yourself: what is this graphic biography going to be about? Second read: understanding content For this reading, you should be looking for unfamiliar vocabulary words, the major claim and key supporting details, and analysis and evidence. You should also spend some time looking at the images and the way in which the page is designed. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: What kind of a state was Asante, and who was Yaa Asantewaa?What was the role of the Queen mother, or Ohemaa?What happened in 1895 and how did it affect Yaa Asantewaa?What happened in 1900, and how did Yaa Asantewaa respond?How does the artist represent Yaa Asantewaa’s leadership through art in this biography? Third read: evaluating and corroborating In this read, you should use the graphic biography as evidence to support, extend, or challenge claims made in the course. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: How does this biography of Yaa Asantewaa support, extend, or challenge what you have learned about reactions and resistance to colonial rule in this period? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Yaa Asantewaa, Queen Mother of Ejisu (Graphic Biography) Writer: Trevor Getz Artist: Liz Clarke Yaa Asantewaa, the Queen Mother of Ejisu in Asante, was a leader of resistance to British conquest. Her actions demonstrate one strategy of resistance to colonialism. Download the Graphic Biography PDF here or click on the image above.

The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here. First read: preview and skimming for gist Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist. Second read: key ideas and understanding content Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you. By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions: In what ways were the empires of the late nineteenth century not new?How were the empires of the late nineteenth century new?How did technology help to support imperialism?How did capitalism and industrialization create motivations for Europeans to conquer new colonies?How does the author argue that racism provided a motivation for Europeans to conquer new colonies?Why did nationalism contribute to the rise of empire in this period?Who are “men-on-the-spot” and how did they contribute to the growth of empire? Third read: evaluating and corroborating Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied. At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions: This article provides several different theories to explain the origins of the “new imperialism” in the late nineteenth century. Which do you think were the most important? Which do you think were less important? Why? Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading. Industrial Imperialism, the “New” Imperialism By Trevor Getz Imperialism was only truly new 4,500 years ago (shout out to the Akkadians). But it got a surprising revival when some parts of the world industrialized. Several factors led to this "new" imperialism. The world in 1880 was made of both nation-states and empires. As you have already learned, once the idea of sovereignty seemed achievable, it went viral. People around the world were increasingly driven by a nationalistic feeling to have their own countries (nation-states). This meant that some empires were slowly breaking up. At the same time, many great imperial powers still held on to colonies, as in South Asia and the Caribbean. Nearly all the industrialized states had hit the pause button on empire expansion by this time, happy to stick with the what they already had. But in 1880, that changed faster than you could say “production and distribution.” Rights courtesy of the author Suddenly, vast regions of the world were colonized by empires that were, once again, growing. For instance, in 1880, the enormous continent of Africa was still mostly made up of independent states and societies. By 1914, Ethiopia and Liberia were the only two independent states left. The rest of the continent was colonized, divided between Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, and Spain. Meanwhile, mainland southeast Asia was conquered, mostly by France. Many Pacific Islands were occupied by the United States, Japan, Germany, France, and Britain. Korea was subjugated (conquered) by Japan. This rapid expansion of colonization around 1880 is often called "New Imperialism". What happened in the last decades of the nineteenth century to cause this rapid change? Was the “New Imperialism” actually new? The first question we must ask about the "New Imperialism" is this: what was new about it? Now, to begin to answer that question, we have to define some rather messy terms. The first is imperialism and the second is colonialism. These two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are actually different. Both occur in empire, which is a third term we have to define (although we have actually defined it before!). At 1884 Berlin Conference, European powers set the rules for colonizing Africa. Notice that no Africans were present at this conference! By Unknown, Public Domain. Empires are states made up of many communities, where one community has control over, and more rights than, the others. Imperialism is a term used to describe the ideas, beliefs, and actions that one group uses to justify and hold control over the others. Colonialism is the experience of the other groups who are being ruled. But again, these last two terms are, in practice, sometimes used interchangeably. Now, empires go back thousands of years in world history! They divided people into a community of citizens with rights, and communities of subjects, with few or none. They also divided their territory into multiple states and regions. These empires had one ruler or ruling body controlling these different people and regions. They did it then, and they did it again in the late nineteenth century, so we're still not seeing the "new" part. In fact, when we look closely at the empires of the "New Imperialism", we see that they were partly modeled on earlier empires. For example, Britain ran their new colonies in Africa in much the same way as they'd been running their massive colony in India for a century. Even more astoundingly, Britain's policies and procedures for managing India (a region far larger than Britain itself) were partly based on strategies the Mughal Empire had used to control India over a hundred years earlier. For example, the British model of "indirect rule" in their new African colonies—finding local allies and paying them to do most of the governing—was based on similar practices they had learned from the Mughals in South Asia. Some British methods of ruling the new colonies were influenced by even older policies they had created to rule their North American and Caribbean colonies in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries! Nevertheless, many factors led to this unprecedented version of empire expansion after the 1880s. There were technologies, ideas, and beliefs that gave Europeans, and the inhabitants of a few other countries, a motive and justification for constructing empires. Many of these were new, and certainly their combination was new, and so we call this a "New Imperialism". Why did the New Imperialism happen? In 1865, a British parliamentary committee recommended that Britain pull back from some of its colonies, rather than expanding. By the 1880s, however, this stance had been reversed. Britain was rapidly trying to build a bigger empire, alongside other industrial powers. Why were they—and many other industrialized nations—suddenly so eager for more colonies? In seeking to understand the emergence of this New Imperialism, historians look at many factors, not just one. It's not that historians are indecisive or love writing long essays. It's just that, as with so many topics throughout history, there are numerous causes. They play off each other in important ways. The changing elements include technology, industrialization and capitalism, racism, nationalism, and… something else. Technology: Before the late nineteenth century, European states (and Japan) couldn't conquer much of the tropical world. They were held back by disease, sure. But also there were large, organized societies in many of these regions that were pretty well armed with low-tech, but effective weapons. Even if invaders had been able to take vast areas, slow communications systems would have made ruling them too difficult. All that changed when several new technologies appeared. New medicines made it possible for Europeans and white Americans to survive malaria and other tropical diseases. The machine gun and other new weapons gave conquerors a big military advantage. Telegraphs, trains, and steamships reinvented communications and travel, making it much easier to rule bigger empires.Industrialization and capitalism: This high-tech wave had been born mostly out of industrialization, giving Europe, the United States, and Japan these big advantages. But before you give credit to industrialization for solving problems, it's a good idea to look at the problems it created. The growth of factories in industrialized countries meant that their businesses had an increasing demand for raw materials. Korea, the African continent, and Southeast Asia had almost no factories, but plenty of raw materials. Since imperialists were also capitalists for the most part, they needed customers for all this great new stuff they were making. They went for a kind of two-for-one deal by conquering territories that could provide the raw materials they needed, and a population who would then buy their finished products.Racism: Existing misconceptions about race, many of which emerged with the Atlantic slave trade, were becoming even more solidified in this era. Many people within these big imperial powers believed it was their right to rule over people they thought were inferior. Within their own societies, there was already some level of racial segregation. For example, in the United States at this time, post-slavery Jim Crow laws tried to reduce the freedoms and rights of African Americans. When applying these superior/inferior racist ideas to ruling people overseas, some even justified their invasions as if they were doing a favor. They viewed empire expansion as a "civilizing mission" to improve the lives of the "uncivilized" and "inferior" people they conquered.Nationalism: You may remember that nationalism began with the idea that all people (the "nation") should have the right to rule themselves through their own government (the "state"). But nationalism could be twisted to the idea that one's own nation was superior to other nations, and had a right to rule over them (see "racism", above). It could also create a competitive attitude among nations. In this era, in particular, nationalism pushed the governments of Britain, France, Germany, and other European powers to compete, first in Europe and then around the world. Nationalism motivated imperialists to take new colonies before their competitors could.“Men-on-the-spot”: This term was created when writers paid less attention to women in history, but in hindsight it may not be an achievement you'd want on your résumé anyway. Everything we have mentioned so far was the result of big trends in the organization of societies. But sometimes, power shifted because of one person or a few people. In some cases, new colonies were carved out because a general or a businessman who had employees with guns just went out and grabbed some new territory, often because they were greedy or wanted glory, and there was no one there to stop them. This happened more often than you might think! Technology: Before the late nineteenth century, European states (and Japan) couldn't conquer much of the tropical world. They were held back by disease, sure. But also there were large, organized societies in many of these regions that were pretty well armed with low-tech, but effective weapons. Even if invaders had been able to take vast areas, slow communications systems would have made ruling them too difficult. All that changed when several new technologies appeared. New medicines made it possible for Europeans and white Americans to survive malaria and other tropical diseases. The machine gun and other new weapons gave conquerors a big military advantage. Telegraphs, trains, and steamships reinvented communications and travel, making it much easier to rule bigger empires. Industrialization and capitalism: This high-tech wave had been born mostly out of industrialization, giving Europe, the United States, and Japan these big advantages. But before you give credit to industrialization for solving problems, it's a good idea to look at the problems it created. The growth of factories in industrialized countries meant that their businesses had an increasing demand for raw materials. Korea, the African continent, and Southeast Asia had almost no factories, but plenty of raw materials. Since imperialists were also capitalists for the most part, they needed customers for all this great new stuff they were making. They went for a kind of two-for-one deal by conquering territories that could provide the raw materials they needed, and a population who would then buy their finished products. Racism: Existing misconceptions about race, many of which emerged with the Atlantic slave trade, were becoming even more solidified in this era. Many people within these big imperial powers believed it was their right to rule over people they thought were inferior. Within their own societies, there was already some level of racial segregation. For example, in the United States at this time, post-slavery Jim Crow laws tried to reduce the freedoms and rights of African Americans. When applying these superior/inferior racist ideas to ruling people overseas, some even justified their invasions as if they were doing a favor. They viewed empire expansion as a "civilizing mission" to improve the lives of the "uncivilized" and "inferior" people they conquered. Nationalism: You may remember that nationalism began with the idea that all people (the "nation") should have the right to rule themselves through their own government (the "state"). But nationalism could be twisted to the idea that one's own nation was superior to other nations, and had a right to rule over them (see "racism", above). It could also create a competitive attitude among nations. In this era, in particular, nationalism pushed the governments of Britain, France, Germany, and other European powers to compete, first in Europe and then around the world. Nationalism motivated imperialists to take new colonies before their competitors could. “Men-on-the-spot”: This term was created when writers paid less attention to women in history, but in hindsight it may not be an achievement you'd want on your résumé anyway. Everything we have mentioned so far was the result of big trends in the organization of societies. But sometimes, power shifted because of one person or a few people. In some cases, new colonies were carved out because a general or a businessman who had employees with guns just went out and grabbed some new territory, often because they were greedy or wanted glory, and there was no one there to stop them. This happened more often than you might think! Each of these factors played a role in the New Imperialism. The big, global trend that had industrial powers rushing to claim new colonies depended on the interaction of these factors each time a new colony was created. For example, a typical "man-on-the-spot" likely used new weapons (technology) to conquer people he thought were inferior (racism) to expand his business (industrialism/capitalism) and be politically rewarded back home for making his country proud (nationalism). The situation in those colonies was also influenced by local factors. How much were locals organized to resist colonialism? How did they react? What was the environment like? What did the people choose to do? As we will see soon, these issues also played a role in the New Imperialism. Author bio Trevor Getz is Professor of African and world History at San Francisco State University. He has written or edited eleven books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and co-produced several prize-winning documentaries. He is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes. [Sources and attributions]