Growth and Emergence of the Atlantic Economy

Good Morning !!!!! :)

Lets talk Euro!

First, the pressures that the growing economy put on cottage workers necessitated the advances that were manifested in the industrial revolution.

I don't know if this is a more accurate representation of me or the cottage industries under the stress of the rapidly growing atlantic economy

• Were the colonies and the Atlantic economy detrimental or beneficial to the cottage workers?
• They were beneficial to industry in general because they provided a new, widened market.
• “More work means more money” -Mr. Yarnall
• They were detrimental to cottage workers specifically because this great demand lead to the development of factories to meet the demand (industrial Revolution).
• The higher demands and growth of industry also led to more jobs.
  
  
• The Navigation Acts: first established by Cromwell 1651, these acts required that goods imported from Europe into England be transported on British ships manned by British crews.
  The Navigation acts were also:
• (1) a monopoly on trading with British colonies which ensured material and market, thus supporting the mercantilist theory
• (2) a form of economic warfare against the Dutch who, like the English, were at the forefront of industrial changes
  
  

  

  England when it came to land in the America

  
  
  
• Mercantilism
• Note the difference between English mercantilism and mercantilism in the rest of Europe: in England, people thought that government economic relations should serve both private and public interests, while in the rest of Europe mercantilism was only intended to serve public interest.
• Was mercantilism necessary?
• Nope, but it helped Britain retain its monopoly over the colonies and leading position in Europe.
• Mercantilism limited the colonies and prevented them from ever going to college and becoming independent and growing big enough, smart enough, and independent enough to revolt.
• Mercantilism also limited England as it created enemies: who ever wanted to trade their webkinz the class bully? Yet, the class bully had the limited edition webkinz (aka major products/wool trade) that everyone wanted.
  

  

  England the Bully

  
  
• Clearly, England’s priority was expansion abroad and maintenance of their dominance in Europe and their monopoly on trade. Plus, no matter how annoyed European countries became with England, and even if they enacted embargos against England, England still had America as a guaranteed trading partner.
  
  

  

  England was establishing its dominance

  
  
  
• In England, the growth of the Atlantic economy meant (1) increased markets and (2) sources for raw materials.
  
  
  
• The mercantilist theory is a zero sum game, meaning in the world there exists a lovely pie that everyone wants a slice of, but the pie will never become larger, so in order for country A to expand its trade, country B’s trade must logically decline.
• 

  (free traders, on the other hand, believe that by increasing trade, there’s more money to go around and the size of the pie will continue to increase exponentially)
  

  
  
  ....along the similar lines was the distribution of power in Europe....someone couldn't become super powerful without someone else becoming incredible weak...
  
  
• War of Spanish Succession: started when Louis XIV said he would take the Spanish crown from his grandson to whom it was willed. Then, other countries ganged up against him to prevent the upset in the balance of power that the union of French and Spanish crowns would cause.

  The War of Spanish succession also caused France to cede Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Hudson Bay territories to Britain.

  
  

  

  thanks Cory

  
  
• France and England were rivals for overseas possession, but not on the industrial front...why?
• Because of France’s inherent economic difficulties, its tax revenues were never enough, so it was always taking out loans abroad. Thus, The French were in perpetual debt service and did not have the means to invest in industry, like the English. This in turn crowded out the private industry that thrived in England.
• ...Also...France spent its money on war, fancy courts, and government and was far behind England in terms of government and organization. While England was the role model of governance, France had a major revolution in its future.
• Spain experienced a similar spending problem which was detailed in Don Quixote and the idea that the Spanish were living in a dream world.
• Life in America for the British was great because: 
  The abundance of almost free land caused a rapid increase in the colonial population in the 18th Century, which caused major agricultural development, and one the highest standards of living in the world at the time.
  Also, you could farm on your own terms, keep most of what you produced, the land was cheap, and the enormous demand for labor led to the development of slavery (the one not-great thing in this list).

  American colonies became so dependent on slaves that in 1790 they composed 20% of colonies' population.

  
  
  Triangle Trade was the trade between Africa, the Americas, and Europe via the middle passage.
  

  
  

  
  
  
  

America contributed raw materials

England contributed manufactured goods

Africa contributed Slaves and some raw materials

Look at this for next class:

Location/Purpose of North American Colonies

France	Spain	England
-Canada, penetrated into Louisiana. -Fur traders→ goal was primarily economic development, set up trading posts.	-Down south “fountain of youth in FL” and on the West Coast. -Missionaries/conquistadores→ After the God and Gold, set up major forts like Saint Augustine (FL).	-Eastern seaboard -Colonists→ GB wanted to created an overseas empire. Dealt with overpopulation, aimed of colonists included God and Gold, established permanent colonies.

me when I finished/Millie when she got into Villanova, congrats girl!

The Beginning of the Population Explosion & the Growth of Cottage Industry

Were Their Lives Better Now?

Disease:

• Now, the black plague had passed as the common black rat that carried the diseased fleas became taken over by the Asiatic brown rat on which the diseased fleas did not survive as well. Due to this fact, the black plague came to an end, therefore allowing the population to start to climb back up.
• In addition, the inoculation for small pox was created, saving many lives throughout the European world.
• Improvements in sewage and general sanitation reduced diseases such as typhoid and typhus in many urban areas.

Putting-Out System:

• Definition: The putting-out system is composed of two main participants, the merchant capitalist and the rural worker. The merchant loaned, or “put out,” raw materials to several cottage workers, who processed the raw materials in their own homes and returned the finished product to the merchant.
• For example, a merchant might provide raw wool and a proletariat would process the wool and weave it into fabric. 
• Proletarian society structure, when compared to peasantry, gave the poor more freedom but at times considered worse than being a peasant. At this time, with these developments, more land was available and more trade control was placed in the hands of the peasants. In addition, with the increase of food production (science/crop rotation) and freedom allowed people to have more control over their lives and futures.
• A proletariat, someone who still completes mindless activities for their living, has a better life now because they are getting paid individually and are not as bound to the land as they had previously been when they were peasants.
• Nothing had improved significantly with the proletarian system, as they were still completing mindless work under the supervision of someone else. This societal revolution allowed the poor to manage their work and income better.
• The proletariats could now relax on the weekends, with Monday distinguished as a rest day, a welcomed difference. Although the relaxing weekends caused intense labor later in the week, the proletariats did their best to complete what was asked of them, and if they hadn’t, the merchant had a relatively small amount of control over them anyway.

• The Putting-Out System Compared to Mercantilism:
• There are aspects that are comparable, but they do not match or are not analogical/analogous.
• The mother country is comparable to the merchant because they were in control or above the proletariats who took the place of a colony.
• On the other hand, the mother country processed the goods and did the bulk of the work like the proletariats while the colony provided the raw goods like the merchant.
• Because these do not line up, they are comparable, but they are not the same.

“Explain the slope of that line”

• With the proletariat structure, an increase in the number of family members, meant that there were more hands to complete the work.
• “Russia was killing it”: Russia had the highest slope or rate of increase of population because they were taking over new areas.
• France: France was steadily growing because of its reliable leadership and social status. 

Thank you so much!! Always a pleasure! 

Franny <3

Enlightened Absolutism

• Is enlightened absolutism a contradiction?

Lets find out

• The Enlightenment is all about disregarding those who understand for you and thinking for yourself. There was a great emphasis on rationality and reason, and progress. 

Throwing off that self-incurred tutelage and going to eat some enlightened grass

• How you you achieve independence of thought with an absolutist ruler?
• The philosophs of this time did not support democracy-- they were afraid of the uneducated rabble that could not think for themselves and would never reach Enlightenment. They would have preferred a government based off of the English Parliament-- a government that could check its own power with representatives (usually educated and rich-- not the poor and unenlightened) in Parliament.
• Absolutist rule actually worked out well-- Rousseau's theory on the general will (the common interests of the people) included the idea that sometimes the long-term needs of the people could only be seen by a “farseeing minority.” This allowed absolutist rulers to argue that they knew what was best for the general will and establish power over their people.
• Enlightened absolutism was also good for the economy-- a freedom to trade and freedom to spend money on whatever they wanted fueled more trade and more money spending

"Freedom will make you money" -Yarnall

• So how did that work out for them?
• Pretty well actually-- we have a couple examples:
• Frederick the Great of Prussia:
• Frederick started out as a rebellious teen, but soon got out of his emo phase and rejoined the family, taking the throne.

"GOD Dad, this isn't just a phase, it's who I AM!!" - Frederick, who would later find out this was actually just a phase

• When the ruler of Austria died, the wonderful Maria Theresa inherited the Hapsburg lands. Frederick, with all of his classy ‘I-have-an-awesome-army’ attitude, decided to immediately and unexpectedly break the promises made to respect the Pragmatic Sanction that protected Maria’s inheritance by invading the German province of Silesia.
• Maria was forced to hand over her land, and Prussia nearly doubled in size.

• Frederick struggled through the Seven Year’s War, and afterword began thinking about how Enlightenment ideology could strengthen Prussia.
• This revelation led Frederick to promote the advancement of knowledge, improving schools, and scientific publications. He also allowed his subjects to believe whatever they wanted about philosophy and religion.
• The legal system was reworked, and soon Prussia was known for its efficiency and impartiality of their now simplified laws.
• Prussia did extremely well under this enlightened absolutism, but the serfs and Jews were never given any freedom of civil rights, which was a real bummer.
• Catherine the Great of Russia
• Catherine the Great was married to Peter III, who was ugly and not very intelligent. Catherine and her military took him out during a palace revolution and Catherine took the throne.
• She went out to rule through enlightened practices. She worked to bring the “sophisticated culture of western Europe to backward Russia”
• She established a better system of laws-- again, slavery was never abolished, bit she did restrict the practice of torture
• in 1775 Catherine gave the nobles absolute control over their serfs
• Local government was improved and there was a focus on improving education
• Catherine also focused on expansion-- she defeated the Crimean Tartars (the last descendants of the Mongols) and took over parts of Poland.
• Overall, Catherine had a remarkably successful rule.
• Joseph II
• known as the “revolutionary emperor”
• His mother, Maria Theresa limited the papacy’s political influence in Austria and passed a huge series of political reforms that helped to unify the infamously divided territory of the Habsburgs-- including reducing the power of the lords over their serfs

Finally, someone thinks of the serfs-- way to go Maria

• Joseph took control over the power of the Catholic Church even more-- he granted religious tolerance and gave civic rights to Protestants and Jews
• Joseph II abolished serfdom completely in his rule and decreed that all peasant labor obligations must be converted into cash payments
• this movement was not popular, and when Joseph II died, his brother had to take back some of Joseph’s more radical edicts to keep the peace.
• It seems as if Joseph’s enlightened absolutism went a bit too far, but in general, enlightened absolutism worked out well for those who did not try to change the already existing social structure of their people.

Hope this was helpful and I hope everyone does well on the test!! -Cory :)

Mumbling Followed by a Pause

Philosophy 

The Scientific Revolution drastically changed the perspectives of the public, those educated aristocrats and upper middle class elites. No longer did they rely on pure faith alone, the process of empiricism had proven that conclusions based on experimental data could yield concrete answers to age old questions. The Enlightenment was that change in the public mindset towards the verification of knowledge through the scientific process, and it was the philosophers (or philosophes) who were responsible for enthusiastically proselytizing the public to this method of thinking  

The philosophes were basically the Jehovah's Witnesses of mainstream society. They thought of empiricism as the cure-all method for all of society's problems. This degree of enthusiastic preaching of the scientific method was great for popularizing science, but made people uncomfortable enough for mainstream society to eventually pull a 360 towards romanticism.  

The greatest means that the philosophes were able to advocate empiricism was through the Encyclopedia: The Rational Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts, and Crafts, edited by Diderot and d'Alembert. It wast the the largest collected work of human knowledge at the time at seventeen volumes. Its editors only incorporated information into it that was collected through empirical processes, thousands of articles from leaders of hundreds of different areas of work.  It was single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the way the public saw the expansion of human knowledge. It was widely read and summed up the world-view of the Enlightenment.  

In contrast, the literary summary of the modern era: Kim Kardashian West: Selfish,  the selfie photography of Kim Kardashian West

Two of the Enlightenment's greatest champions were Voltaire and Rousseau. 

If one were to imagine the two as a buddy-cop duo, Voltaire would be the uptight realistic one who plays by the rules, while Rousseau is the wacky newbie who plays by his own. Together they fought corruption and taught people new lessons about themselves. 

So advanced. And progressive, might I add. 

Voltaire 

• Early Enlightenment
• Influenced the enlightenment style of politics of many European Monarchs including Catherine the Great and Fredrick William I. 
• Did not believe in popular sovereignty or equality in human affairs. 
• Came up with political theory that equality can only be achieved in the eyes of the law in order to protect the weak from the ambitions of the strong. 

Rousseau

• Late Enlightenment
• attacked the Enlightenment's faith in reason, progress, and moderation
• rationalism and civilization destroyed rather than liberated the individual. 
• Warm, spontaneous feeling had to complement and correct cold intellect
• The Social Contract
• general will
• reflect the common interests of all people
• not always the will of the people, sometimes the long term needs of the people as interpreted by a leading body
• popular sovereignt
• common interest displaces monarch for soverignty

The Wet Blanket, a.k.a. David Hume 

Irwin Shrodinger was a  scientist who out of love of quantum mechanics and hatred for its increasing complexity, created the Schodinger's cat thought experiment to show how ridiculous the field was becoming. The experiment called for situations that would only exist under the confusing circumstances that defined quantum mechanical rules. David Hume did pretty much the same thing to Enlightenment thought by taking empiricism to its logical extreme. He theorized that "the human mind is nothing but a bundle of impressions. These impressions originate only in sense experiences and the joining of different sense experiences. Since our ideas ultimately reflect only our sense experiences, our reason cannot tell is anything about questions that cannot be verified by sense experience." As reason was a process that could not be verified by sense experience, empirical thought was therefore flawed and empiricism lost the mystical aura of perfection mainstream media had come to view it with. 

Theology also developed in this time period, with many philosophes forming deist views of Christianity. Deism was the practice of viewing the universe as a system intelligently designed by God to be able to work without his intervention. 

How Enlightened was the Enlightenment? 

The Enlightenment was the awkward teenage years of Western philosophy. It was just coming around to the ideas of popular sovereignty and science and empiricism that would rapidly advance the West into the Modern age, but was still for the most part stuck in the traditions of its unstable Medieval years. The idea of separation of power that would become so important in the age of democracy was little more than a tool for nobles of the time to reduce the power of kings in order to prevent unwelcome reforms. 

Given that intellectualism of the time was defined by the ability to practice empirical thought, peasants were considered even less capable of positive output than in previous centuries. In Western Europe, the peasantry had been freed from feudalism in the same way the African Americans had been freed from slavery immediately after the civil war, just barely and with very little improvement of living standard. In Eastern Europe feudalism was strongly enforced and more oppressive to the peasantry than it had been in the past. Such treatment of the poor contrasts that of previous eras when, though the peasantry was considered dumb and dangerous, they had more mutual relationships with their masters and were regarded as having the sort of idealized wisdom that comes with  living a life of natural simplicity. 

Women and the Enlightenment 

Notes on the Original Femi-Nazis and those Victimized by Their Reign of Terror

Dual effect on Women

• Laid foundations of modern feminism

○ Demand greater role in intellectual life

○ Influence enlightenment as salonnieres and sponsors 

• Rise of ideology of domesticity 

Concepts of Women's Rights 

• Separate Spheres 

○ Women's education should prepare them to serve men 

○ In gentleness a woman can rule because people will give into her 

○ Power of women comes from their attractiveness 

• Patriotic motherhood 
• Liberty, natural, rights, and emancipation in terms of familial control
• Women do not need education in order to have power over men, but to have  independence. 
•  independence leads to productivity and virtue 
• If men develop differently and are not all intelligent, then to not educate women is a folly. 
•  Meek wives make foolish mothers 
• Good mothers must have a sense and independence of mind that people who rely on their husbands don’t have
• If a women's role is to educate children and be good wives then they can do this best by being rational creatures and free citizens
• Women should be trained in the fields of medicine, midwifery, business, shop-keeping, and farming. 

Celebrities bringing idea to light - Philosophers on Women 

• Descartes - all women had the potential to be educated

• Locke - all women equally independent in nature

• Marquis de Condorcet - women had right to equal citizenship and education

• Rousseau - Social contract included one between men and women 

○ Men protect women and women serve men

○ Emile - separate spheres

§ Men=public

§ Women=private

§ Glorified domesticity 

Mary Wollstonecraft 

• Vindication of the Rights of Women 

• Equality of sexes

○ Society wasting resources by keeping women as "convenient domestic slaves" 

• Formulated main doctrines of modern women's movement 

• Education was key to equality and independence 

○ Advocated coeducation

• Society could progress through self-advancement and self-education

Main Idea

• Education extended, but became gender specific and women excluded from many fields 

• Economic set back because of the rise of capitalism 

• Separation of public and private ideology of domesticity largely restricted women 

Gave birth to the feminist consciousness and advocacy of rights and opportunities for women 

Dear Readers,

"Why do we never get to ask you questions, Mr. Yarnall?" (Me)
"Well..." (Yarn)
"To be fair he doesn't let us speak that much." (Cory)
"OOOOOHHHHH." (All)

And on that note...

Effects of the Scientific Revolution-
What are the consequences of the Scientific Revolution? How did the revolution effect society as a whole?- During the Renaissance & eras that preceded it, authority was based on ancient laws & ideas with religion as a major influence (i.e. the Divine Right of Kings). However, during the Scientific Revolution & Enlightenment period, methodology & authority based on reason & natural law took precedence. The idea of human progress flourished in the Enlightenment, specifically due to the scientific method & a growth in the "search for truth" outside of religion.

Were people, in their beliefs & in progress, truly in pursuit of perfection?- no. Scientists were aware that they could never achieve perfection. So then what is our end goal? Was there really any end goal? “The journey is more important than the destination.” Scientists & Enlightenment thinkers sought truths & new knowledge through nature & scientific explanation, but they were well-aware of the fact that they would never attain all knowledge. (Relatable example: Why do we go to school if we are aware that we will never know everything?)

Is skepticism anti-progress?- no! Skepticism actually furthered most research & experimentation during this time period as people avidly sought new & untainted (by the Church, that is) knowledge.

"Where da truf at? FOUND IT."

Sentiment of the Enlightenment-

So...the people living during the Enlightenment were optimistic?- yes! People were optimistic in that they were hopeful for the future in a positive way ("Yes, we will make new discoveries & obtain new knowledge!"). Doesn't the rich’s view of the poor seem pessimistic, though? "The philosophes believed that the great majority of the common people were doomed to superstition & confusion because they lacked the money & leisure to look beyond their bitter struggle with grinding poverty." (page 608) Did the rich essentially say, “Why bother with the poor, or the rabble, because they will never be enlightened anyway?” The French upper & educated class, the philosophes, were "the enlightened". The poorer classes were not exposed to Enlightenment ideas as they were uneducated & had neither the time nor the money to ponder Enlightenment thoughts as the rich did. Therefore, you could say that views were both optimistic & pessimistic when referring the ability of society to become enlightened (optimistic = rich, pessimistic = poor). However, you could also say that the rich believed education & literacy (the "reading revolution" is coming up!) could help the poor out of their unenlightened ways.

Does society progress as a whole?- yes. There will always be a lower & higher end of society because just as a poorer class progresses, a wealthy class progresses even further. “The few smaller states were successful in making reform.” This statement refers to the fact that a "close gap" between classes & a more reformed society is much more tangible in a smaller society as there are less people to oppose public opinion, halt reforms, & contribute to class divides.

Awkward Topic that Did Not Fit in with the Lesson-

Is Montesquieu more modern than the rest?- yes, he applied the critical method (scientific method, but in regard to politics) to government & criticized the idea of an all-powerful monarch. Montesquieu believed in a separation of powers. 

Would Montesquieu agree with Montaigne?- yes! Montaigne wrote On Cannibals, an account of the mistreatment of natives by strong & arrogant European overlords. Both Montaigne & Montesquieu were against a domineering & extremely strong government.

When you realize Montaigne is from another chapter & you already blocked all of that information our of your mind.

To ponder for the next class-

Of Voltaire & Rousseau, who was wackier?

xoxo,

Nicole Flo :)

Me after I finished this post (& at semi, obviously).