Answer:
The governments of early modern India and China traditionally focused their attention on the enormous wealth gained from their inland agricultural empires rather than the emerging trade taking place on their shorelines. They depended on peasants and the expansion of territory inland. And they had lots of both. Both empires relied heavily, for their wealth and stability, on taxes derived from agriculture. They both benefited from thriving manufacturing sectors—Indian cotton and indigo, and Chinese silk and porcelain. But rulers paid little attention to and had minimal control over the new and rising merchant classes as the global economy brought more trade and wealth from the oceans. And for both, their lack of imperial sea power contributed eventually to their downfall. When European ships armed with the latest cannons sailed into the Indian Ocean in the 16th century they found it unguarded.
These Asian empires failed to attend to the rising sea trade because they already enjoyed great economic and political success. Things were going quite well for them. So, Chinese and Indian empires paid little attention to the annoying European ships that began showing up at their shores in small numbers in the 16th century. China was the dominant economic power and commanded a trade surplus with the rest of the world. Chinese agriculture was more efficient than European methods because the Chinese excelled in irrigation technology. China had superior transportation projects; they made excellent use of canals on a scale much larger than in Europe. For example, China’s Grand Canal connected cities along a 1000-mile north-to-south route, facilitating domestic trade and travel. Despite many requests from European sovereigns over the years, emperors saw little need to alter their successful economic system or engage in trade with the Europeans. As late as 1793, after repeated inquiries, the Chinese emperor Ch’ien-lung (Qianlong) famously rejected King George of England’s request for trade: “As your ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and we have no use for your country’s manufactures . . . There [is] therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce” (Frank 273). But, China’s lack of interest in sea trade in particular allowed Europeans to take advantage of an easy source of wealth. It’s how Europeans put their foot in the door.
John Winthrop strongly believed that the role of the government was opposed to democracy, which he referred to as the worst way of government. For him the duty of government was to promote justice over welfare. Usually seen as intolerant he had a positive side, in which he endorses charity and public participation.
Answer: Some 5 million enslaved Africans were taken to the Caribbean, almost half of whom were brought to the British Caribbean (2.3 million). As planters became more reliant on enslaved workers, the populations of the Caribbean colonies changed, so that people born in Africa, or their descendants, came to form the majority.
In discussing the stockyards of Chicago, Hemingway wanted to express how conversations about war hide the killing, sadness, rot, and suffering.
We could come to this conversation because:
- Hemingway claims that the stockyards of Chicago are only concerned with presenting the meat, but they hide the slaughter and suffering of the cattle.
- Similarly, conversations about war, present only honor, duty and patriotism, but hide all the suffering and death they cause.
In this case, Hemingway presents the stockyards of Chicago to show how people romanticize and hide the real face of war. For him, this is harmful, as it encourages more wars to happen, just as the stockyards of Chicago want to encourage more meat to be consumed.
You can find more information about what Hemingway meant by citing the stockyards of Chicago at:
brainly.com/question/25766941
Answer:
Germany used the loans to pay reparations to Britain and France.
Explanation: