Because this was a period in which there was a great export of slaves, in addition to the fact that there were great discussions of white men and blacks still fighting for their total freedom.
In general, starting from the history of a large part of these peoples, we can say that there was domestic slavery in Africa, and not a commercial slavery, that is, among several African peoples, the slave was not a commodity, but an arm to more in harvesting, livestock, mining and hunting; an extra warrior in military campaigns.
These African peoples preferred women as slaves, since they were responsible for agriculture and could generate new members for the community. And many of the children born to slave mothers were considered free by the community. The vast majority of African peoples were matrilineal, that is, they organized themselves based on maternal ancestry, starting with the transmission of names and privileges from the mother. In this way, a slave mother could become a political leader in her society, having generated the heir to the local leadership.
In addition, a slave who was faithful to his master could occupy a position of local prestige, including owning his slaves. Thus, not always being a slave was a condition of humiliation and disrespect. Even representing a submission, it was a situation that was often the same as that of other free people.
Answer:
Explanation:
North Korea was were the Soviet Union turned the area Communism while South Korea went to the U.S to turn into Capitalism.
Similarities:
Both empires emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries as postclassic civilizations building on the innovations of earlier political powers but expanding to greater extents
Both empires were entirely infantry, but well supplied, well-organized, and extremely aggressive and militaristic. Javelins, slings, spears and maces were used in battle.
Both empires had inherent instabilities
Both empires were fueled by corn.
Both empires have little to no seafaring, and instead stuck to the mountains and valleys in the center of the region.
Both empires conquered hundreds of cities in the region that resented their rule and taxation
Both empires were ended by Spanish invasions that capitalized on native divisions, introduced disease, and Spanish technology of guns, horses, and steel.
Both empires are misnamed-the Inka was the ruler of Tawantinsuyu, and the Aztecs adopted the name Mexica.
Both empires provided public education
Both Atahualpa and Moctezuma decided against confronting the Spanish militarily, allowing for the Spanish to take the Emperors hostage.
Attempts to restore the monarchy came after the capture and death of the emperor, but were too late.
Differences:
The Incas were bronze age, Aztecs were stone age
THe Incas assigned governors and shuffled conquered peoples around. There was a greater centralization than in Mexico
The Aztecs were a tributary empire, not a direct one.
The Aztecs had writing, while the Incas used Quipu
The Aztecs still had many rivals left unsubdued
The Inca used mostly potatoes while corn was far more dominant in Mexico.
The Inca had llamas, small but important livestock that made transport easier
The Inca had a sophisticated courier system of Chasquis along state-maintained roads
The Inca used bronze axes and halberds, with slings and maces as their main weapons alongside spears. The Aztecs used obsidian swords and glaives instead for close combat, and used javelins far more. Likewise, while Inca military relied on the unit’s experience and officer corps for their quality like the Romans, the Aztecs instead had a feudalistic division between the elite knights and commoners, with advancement by taking captives.
The Inca allowed women into their schools but not commoners. The Aztecs prohibited women but allowed for peasant men to also gain an education.
The diseases that destroyed the Incas came before the Spanish actually arrived in Peru, while the Spanish had been in Mexico for months before the plagues killed the emperor and populace.
Moctezuma’s mistake was trying to use generosity to awe the Spanish and try to coax them on his side, while Atahualpa’s was trying to awe them with his army rather than actually using it.
The Inca political crisis was a civil war between two brothers, while the Aztec’s was a three way duel between the King, the Priests, and the Aristocracy and military.
