It’s a similar question as your last, mongols facilitated contact with west Asia and Europe contributing to the beginning of “global history”. Mongols favored trade their nomadic way made them see the importance of it, unlike Chinese who thought to be disdainful to trade and saw merchants as parasitical that did not produce any good, mongols had a very positive toward traders and commerce even facilitated international trade. Mongols increases the amount of paper money in China and guaranteed value of paper in precious metals.
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
In Ming and Qing society, upper class women were confined to domestic roles, cripple their own feet through foot-binding and seen as inferior.
- <em>Chinese women</em> have always faced difficulties in society as they are confined to do <em>domestic chores.</em>
- Women virtue admired in Chinese society.
- In Upper society, girls from age five had their feet tied with cloth, believing that small feet would attract to their future <em>groom.</em>
- The "three obedience and four virtues" ideas were popular in Chinese society for an <em>ideal woman.</em>
Therefore, we can conclude that in <u>upper-class society </u>women faced hardship where their rights were restricted by society.
Thus option <u>All of the above</u> is the correct answer.
Learn more about "Ming Emperors" here:
brainly.com/question/1286072
Stump pullers, wheel barrows and shovels where used to build the erie canal
