2) How were the demographics of colonized lands affected as they were colonized, controlled by foreign powers, and then later freed or decolonized?

2) Smith argues that government should not involve itself in the economy because for one it would demand much time, resources, and attention, and because governing the economy would be assuming “an authority which could not be safely trusted, not only to no single person but to no council or senate…” (1).

3)  The ideas of both Locke ad Montesquieu are evident in this excerpt.  Locke’s idea that government, in exchange for some of the people’s freedom, must protect them is apparent in Smith’s statement that government has a duty “first, [to protect] the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies: secondly, [to protect], as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or [to establish] an exact administration of justice; and, [to erect and maintain] certain public works and certain public institutions” (2).  Montesquieu’s ideas on the separation of powers within a government can be seen in Smith’s concept of separating the government and the economy.

4)  The division of labor is the idea that in order to produce a good, each worker does not need to understand the entire process.  Each worker is delegated a certain portion of the process and then he needs only to complete that one job.  This allows for an increase in the productivity of each worker.  Also, time is saved as each worker does not need to change from one job to another to complete the product.  Finally, with the industrialization of many of the most basic tasks, a worker is much more productive.

5) The production of a pin is characterized as having multiple, distinctly different steps.  This is a major factor in the division of labor for this example.  As Smith says, ten men, who were all poor craftsmen, when given the right machinery could make over 48,000 pins a day.

6) Productivity is increased because each worker only has to complete one distinct task in the production of the pin.  For example, “one man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head…” (3).  This allows each worker to become proficient in their specific job, increasing efficiency.

7) As each worker only needed to learn a perform one job in the process, their individual skill decreased as a consequence.

A increase in the need for food was the other, more dominant factor for the industrial revolution.  This lead to the development of new lands dedicated to food production, new technologies, and new techniques for food production.  Another related factor was the imbalance of food production.  The more densely populated areas tended to not produce sufficient amounts of food.  Consequently, new techniques and technologies were developed in order to better transport and preserve food.

This source does an excellent job of providing a clear coherent description of the French Revolution, why it came about, what happened, and what consequences there were.  Though the source appears to show some support for the common people of France, portraying both Louis XVI, Robespierre, and later Napoleon, rather critically, it explains the revolution with little argument or with no definite point to prove.   It approaches and covers the information systematically, providing clear connections between different key events.  This easy to understand layout is a high point of this source.

However, there are two significant drawbacks to this book.  Though the information is well presented and easy to understand, structurally this source is rather disorganized.  It seems to be based around significant interesting points as opposed to a more understandable chronological order.  Its only strict chronological adherence is to a discussion first of the pre-revolution period and early revolution, and then subsequently discussing the revolution while it was in full swing and its conclusion.  Apart from this, whole sections are dedicated to the storming of the Bastille and the Guillotine, which are seemingly thrown in haphazardly.  Another downside to this source is that I was unable to find much information on either author, Kate Santon and Liz Mckay.  I did find that Santon has written other books, one on the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamen and another on archaeology and how it helps in the study of history.  The little information that I found on either author does not give the book much credibility as a solid source.

I simply tried to drill down slightly and focus my research more.

The revised question specifies that the research will concentrate on the regions were slave trading was dominant and will concentrate solely the African perspective.  The research will be second-hand analysis of the slave trade, much like the Crosby article which placed heavy emphasis on environmental causality.  However, primary sources will prove to be good sources of direct information for both aspects.

- This question can help us gain a better understanding of the thought processes of the African natives in their dealings with Europeans.  It will be interesting because much less is known about the African perspective on slavery and slave trading.

2) Why is is that during the early years of trading between the Europeans and Africans, the Africans where the dominant, controlling party, and during the later years, this role is flipped?

- This would be an interesting question to research because the traditional view is that Europeans always has the upper hand with regards to trade in Africa.  One can address why this view is incorrect during the early years and then why and how it changes.

Crosby goes on to explain why this phenomena occurs.  His reasoning behind why Europeans conquered so prolifically is that they had both a drive to expand and colonize and that they had a wealth of resources, such as certain domesticated animals and certain easily cultivated plants, that could, at some times, easily adapt to the slightly nuanced environment.  In these cases, where their resources they brought with them to the new land, were able to adapt, Europeans succeeded in a demographic takeover, the majority of the native human, animal, and plant populations were reduced drastically to be replaced by the imported European counterparts.  The section that I read discussed specifically plants, or as Crosby called them, weeds.  These weeds were as Crosby puts it simply hardy, agressive plants that were able to adapt to and eventually dominate native plants.  Examples of these plants were many of the oats or grains that Europeans used to feed themselves and their animals.  He corroborates these assertions with many statistics all showing in a small period of time, sharp drops in the population native flora and fauna, and large increases in the populations, of imported flora and fauna. 

Crosby article is at once comprehensive, in-depth and well-organized.  It tackles an issue that I at least take for granted daily: the fact that a large percentage of the world’s population is either fully or partially  European.  Their integration into almost every society is so prolific, that one fails to truly comprehend the magnitude of this fact.  Crosby discusses this issue in a nuanced way and to me his method is quite persuasive.  He is very meticulous, much more so than other historians, in his finding of thorough evidence for every single assertion he makes.  His incorporation of many statistics, is not as traditional and is quite effective.  He also does a good job of really connecting his assertions to evidence.  This allows for both an informative and relatively simple article, which is able to convey his argument in a fashion that is easily understood.

Among his scholarly contributions, Heard in 1952 published A Two-Party South?, in which he predicted the transformation of the southern United States from one-party Democratic allegiance to two-party Democratic-Republican rivalry. At the time the Republican Party was virtually nonexistent in much of the South.^[3]

On May 8, 1970, Heard was appointed “Special Adviser on the Academic Community and the Young” by President Nixon.^[4]

During his career at Vanderbilt, Heard was offered the presidency of other institutions including Columbia University, but consistently declined, returning to Vanderbilt.^[5]

Along with his wife Jean, Alexander Heard is the eponym of Vanderbilt’s Jean and Alexander Heard Library, and the University, annually since 1952, has given a faculty member who has demonstrated exceptional understanding of contemporary society the Alexander Heard Distinguished Service Professor Award. A memorial service was held on 2009 July 28 in Benton Chapel on the Vanderbilt Campus.^[6]

Vanderbilt University

Heard was appointed as Chancellor of Vanderbilt University in 1963 during a time when many university administrators where confronting much internal strife and division in their respective institutions.  Vanderbilt was a calm center of stability when seen against the backdrop of the rioting, vandalism, and violent protesting which had become the norm at other universities.  From early on in his administration, it became clear that Heard was not a conventional Chancellor.  He held quiet frequent meetings with student leaders, even some of the university’s most radical elements. [7]

He was a staunch defender of the open forum, in a period of great social and political discontent, earning the respect of the students.  He defended what he saw as the “students['] and faculty['s] [right] to invite to the campus speakers of all political persuasions in an effort to better understand their views”[7].  As a result of this view many controversial figures spoke at Vanderbilt, most notably the civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. and an advocate of black supremacy, Stokely Carmichael.[7] Controversy engulfed Heard for Carmichael’s invitation, yet he remained calm and staunchly supportive of his action, saying that “the university’s obligation is not to protect students from ideas, but rather to expose them to ideas, and to help make them capable of handling and, hopefully, having ideas”.[7] This approach to leading the school along with what Heard called the university’s willingness to “alter and adjust its way of doing things, including its system of internal governance, in order to create a harmonious and productive educational community“[7] allowed the university to endure the external pressure and resulting internal strife that many other academic institutions suffered greatly from.

Heard will also be remembered for the many positive additions he made to Vanderbilt.  He increased the curricular options through the acquisition of the George Peabody College and the establishments of the Peabody College of Education and Human Development, the Blair School of Music and, the Owen Graduate School of Management.  He also doubled enrollment, increased the annual budget, and recruited many new professors, distinguished for excellence both as teachers and as researchers.[7]

Honorary Degrees

George Alexander Heard received 27 Honorary Degrees from Academic Institutions Including

• Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland (LL.D) in 1971 [1]
• Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, New York (DHL) in 1979 [2]
• Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania (LL.D) in 1977 [3]
• University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky (D.Litt) in May 1983 [4]

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

[edit] Notes

Among his scholarly contributions, Heard in 1952 published A Two-Party South?, in which he predicted the transformation of the southern United States from one-party Democratic allegiance to two-party Democratic-Republican rivalry. At the time the Republican Party was virtually nonexistent in much of the South.^[3]

On May 8, 1970, Heard was appointed “Special Adviser on the Academic Community and the Young” by President Nixon.^[4]

During his career at Vanderbilt, Heard was offered the presidency of other institutions including Columbia University, but consistently declined, returning to Vanderbilt.^[5]

Alexander Heard was remembered at Vanderbilt for presiding over the doubling of enrollment, maintaining an atmosphere of civility in discussion during an era when many American campuses were in tumult, and expanding the curricular offerings including the acquisition of adjacent George Peabody College to become Peabody College of Education and Human Development in Vanderbilt University. His presidency inaugurated both the Blair School of Music and the Owen Graduate School of Management. Along with his wife Jean, Alexander Heard is the eponym of Vanderbilt’s Jean and Alexander Heard Library, and the University, annually since 1952, has given a faculty member who has demonstrated exceptional understanding of contemporary society the Alexander Heard Distinguished Service Professor Award. A memorial service was held on 2009 July 28 in Benton Chapel on the Vanderbilt Campus.^[6]

Vanderbilt University

Heard was appointed as Chancellor of Vanderbilt University in 1963 during a time when many university administrators where confronting much internal strife and division in their respective institutions.  Vanderbilt was a calm center of stability when seen against the backdrop of the rioting, vandalism, and violent protesting which had become the norm at other universities.  From early on in his administration, it became clear that Heard was not a conventional Chancellor.  He held quiet frequent meetings with student leaders, even some of the university’s most radical elements. [7]

He was a staunch defender of the open forum, during a period of great social and political discontent, earning the respect of the students.  He defended what he saw as the “students['] and faculty['s] [right] to invite to the campus speakers of all political persuasions in an effort to better understand their views”[7].  As a result of this view many controversial figures spoke at Vanderbilt, most notably the civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. and an advocate of black supremacy, Stokely Carmichael.[7]  Controversy engulfed Heard for Carmichael’s invitation, yet he remained calm and staunchly supportive of his action, saying that “the university’s obligation is not to protect students from ideas, but rather to expose them to ideas, and to help make them capable of handling and, hopefully, having ideas”.[7]  This approach to leading the school along with what Heard called the university’s willingness to “alter and adjust its way of doing things, including its system of internal governance, in order to create a harmonious and productive educational community“[7] allowed the university to endure the external pressure and resulting internal strife that many other academic institutions bore the full brunt of.

Heard will also be remembered for the many positive additions he made to Vanderbilt.  He increased the curricular options through the acquisition of the George Peabody College and the establishments of the Peabody College of Education and Human Development, the Blair School of Music and, the Owen Graduate School of Management.  He also doubled enrollment, increased the annual budget, and recruited many new professors, distinguished for excellence both as teachers and as researchers.[7]

Honorary Degrees

George Alexander Heard received 27 Honorary Degrees from Academic Institutions Including

• Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland (LL.D) in 1971 [1]
• Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, New York (DHL) in 1979 [2]
• Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania (LL.D) in 1977 [3]
• University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky (D.Litt) in May 1983 [4]

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

[edit] Notes