World History Homework Ten Answers - Student Two

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

AddisonDM 22:33, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

1.The Industrial Revolution lasted approximately from 1750 to 1900, or about a century and a half. It was earliest and greatest in England, though it spread to parts of Continental Europe and even the North American colonies, all in or before the 1800s. For some other countries the Industrial Revolution came later, and it ended in those countries in about 1900.

Excellent. The end date of 1900 seems late, but you're right that it did reach some areas until then ... or even until now!

2.I like Louis Pasteur because he discovered both a problem (germs) and a solution (pasteurization), and also because he believed that Christianity is compatible with science. My second choice is Charles Darwin! I can’t say he is one of my favorites, but whatever one’s opinion on the theory of evolution, his publishing of Origin of Species is admirable. This is because he knew his theory would be disruptive to his society and cause conflict and ridicule, but he published it anyway because he felt he was right.

Agree wholeheartedly with your first example (Pasteur), but not with your second (Darwin). How do we know if Darwin really felt he was right? Also, I don't think Darwin suffered much ridicule, at least not by people he tried to impress, compared with Christians. But you get full credit for your answer.

3.The Industrial Revolution was good, with some bad effects. Modern life would be impossible without the industrial technology that the Revolution spearheaded and developed. Also, capitalism suggests that such progress is inevitable. Unless government suppresses progress, it will happen. The bad effects of the Revolution were the poor working conditions in the factories, pollution caused by factories, and the low quality of living in factory towns and slums. But with these unfortunate effects eventually came affordable clothing and food, increased sanitation, and a new production network that enabled modern manufacturing and communications to flourish within a century.

Terrific, may use as a model! The Industrial Revolution certainly created new opportunities. Also, great use of the wikilinking!

4.In Italy Giuseppe Mazzini founded the Brotherhood of Young Italy in 1831 to argue for unification of Italy into one nation. Mazzini’s call was too early to be effective at the time, but was not meaningless. By 1861 most of Italy unified, and by 1870 Venice and Rome joined too.


5.Imperialism is the direct or indirect control of one nation over another, especially regarding economics and culture. The four “patterns” or means of exerting imperialism are: the establishment of colonies which are then controlled or exploited by the mother country; the establishment of protectorates, where a country is “protected” by the imperializing country; spheres of influence, in which one or a few countries only have trade rights with another country; and economic imperialism, or imperialism imposed by private companies in order to make money.


6.I like the expedition of Henry Livingstone in central Africa. Rather than going to Africa to imperialize and exploit, he went to preach the Gospel and make a natural discovery: finding the source of the Nile. Had more independent people or small groups visited Africa to help it by moderizing it, but not exploit it, it would be a more peaceful place today.

Interesting answer. Not sure that violence in Africa today (some it religious, some of it tribal, some of it political) has much to do with colonization patterns of over 100 years ago. But it might. (Note misspelling: modernizing).

7.I find it interesting that Japan, which is geographically tiny compared to Russia and China was able to defeat both of them in quick succession (Russia in the 1900s, not 1800s). It's surprising that Japan could even have a large enough military to prevent being completely overrun by hordes of Chinese and Russians. Japan's battles with these two nations reminds of the 300 Spartans who held back the Persian army of hundreds of thousands.

Superb, may use as a model. Good use of ancient history also. Your point illustrates how a cohesive, unified small group can defeat a much larger, but less motivated, adversary.


1.Utilitarianism is an economic theory that teaches the only standard by which to judge something is economic gain. It is like an economic counterpart to pragmatism, in which the standard is “what works best?” Utilitarianism does not evaluate the right and wrong or the moral aspects of a situation, and thus can be used to justify almost anything, as long as it makes money. It’s really the result of taking capitalism to its logical end, although my guess would be that capitalist economists did not accept it. My own opinion is that the moral aspect must always be considered, and the choice that “works” or makes most money is not always right.

Utilitarianism is mostly associated with economics, but it goes beyond money to issues like stem cell research and even the Crucifixion of Jesus (one motivation discussed in the New Testament for the Crucifixion was for enemies of Jesus to justify killing Him order to preserve the status quo).
I don't agree that capitalism justifies utilitarianism, although many would agree with your view. I view capitalism as being based on morality, charity, innovation, and the work ethic. American capitalists like the Puritans would never accept slavery even though it was advantageous from a utilitarian perspective.

3.I think nationalism is a bad thing. It was nationalism that underlied the brutal fascist dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. It was nationalism that enabled Big Brother to rule in 1984, while the people were made to blindly accept his cruel rule and hate everyone who belonged to another country. Nationalism is more often an excuse to distract the people in order to impose collectivism and dictatorship than a positive force. What we want is patriotism, the love of one’s country and the desire to be a good citizen, not nationalism, the blind obedience of a dictator who symbolizes the country. The basic differenence is that patriotism recognizes a difference between country and government, while in nationalism, they are essentially interchangeable and synonymous.


5.Evolution. I think the philosophical implications of Darwinism, and the twisted theories that came from it such as Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement, have to be separated from the pure science. Science is not ideological. It’s either true or false. Either biological processes caused simple life forms to become more complex, or they didn’t. If this theory is true, then I believe God somehow directed these processes, using them as a means of creation. If it’s false, then Darwin was wrong. But we shouldn’t condemn Darwin for developing a scientific theory. We should refute it, or accept it, based on science.

Logic begets logic; fallacies beget fallacies. When a theory spawns untruths, it's a warning sign that there is something wrong with the theory. This is like finding a contradiction in math. When that happens, it's time to revisit the assumptions underlying the work.
The enormous political and atheistic motivations for promoting evolution mean that deceit has been and will be repeatedly used to push the theory. I spent several years wading through it and personally concluded there is no germ of truth there. You're welcome to undertake that task and draw your own conclusions.
Merely one Counterexample to Evolution disproves the theory. I see about two dozen. Also, the notion of God-directed evolution contradicts two of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity: that man was created in God's image, and that Christ redeemed the sin of Adam. The Humani Generis even forbids the teaching of evolution as it is commonly understood.
The bottom line for me is that the theory of evolution is one (of many) deceitful attempts to weaken Christian faith. The theory of evolution is a ticket to the falsehood and despondency of atheism for most people.
Superb effort in your answers with two models! Feel free to discuss any of my comments on the talk page for this work. Score: 100/100.--Andy Schlafly 09:50, 19 April 2009 (EDT)