Name: _____________________________________WHAP 101KEY CONCEPT 5.2- Imperialism and Nation State FormationPart II- Transformations in Restructuring of Societies

Standard 4.0 3.5 Not a 3.0 yetStandard 4: Emergence of global society through mass-communications and technology

78 – 69 points

68 - 58 points

Less than 58 points

Daily Work Take complete notes of the packet _______/10 points

Assessments-SAQ #1 _____/24 pointsSAQ #2 _____/16 pointsSAQ #3 _____/8 points Vocabulary Test _____/20 points

Vocabulary

Commodore Perry- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Tokugawa Japan- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Meiji Restoration- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Manifest Destiny- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Monroe Doctrine Definition-

1

Historical Significance – Mexican-American War- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Cherokee Nation- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Trail of Tears- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Zulu Nation- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Shaka Zulu- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Serbian Revolution- Definition-

Historical Significance –

White Man’s Burden- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Social Darwinism- Definition-

Historical Significance –

Eugenics-Definition-

2

Historical Significance –

I. Imperial ism influenced state formation and contraction around the world.

Background: Japan established an age of isolation and had no contact with any foreigners, which was by started because of a revolt and killing of Christians, both foreign and native Japanese. They had not contact with foreigners except for one small island of Dutch trades who needed permission from the Shogun to trade.

Read and take notes on the following reading-

Commodore Perry and Japan (1853-1854)- http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_perry.htmThe West demands trade with JapanOn July 8, 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry of the United States Navy, commanding a squadron of two steamers and two sailing vessels, sailed into Tôkyô harbor aboard the frigate Susquehanna. Perry, on behalf of the U.S. government, forced Japan to enter into trade with the United States and demanded a treaty permitting trade and the opening of Japanese ports to U.S. merchant ships. This was the era when all Western powers were seeking to open new markets for their manufactured goods abroad, as well as new countries to supply raw materials for industry. It was clear that Commodore Perry could impose his demands by force. The Japanese had no navy with which to defend themselves, and thus they had to agree to the demands.Perry's small squadron itself was not enough to force the massive changes that then took place in Japan, but the Japanese knew that his ships were just the beginning of Western interest in their islands. Russia, Britain, France, and Holland all followed Perry's example and used their fleets to force Japan to sign treaties that promised regular relations and trade. They did not just threaten Japan — they combination their navies on several occasions to defeat and disarm the Japanese feudal domains that defied them.

Tokugawa Japan into which Perry SailedJapan at this time was ruled by the shôgun ("great general") from the Tokugawa family. The Tokugawa shogunate was founded about 250 years earlier, in 1603, when Tokugawa leyasu (his surname is Tokugawa) and his allies defeated an opposing coalition of feudal lords to establish dominance over the many contending warlords. But while Tokugawa became dominant, receiving the title of shôgun from the politically powerless emperor, he did not establish a completely centralized state. Instead, he replaced opposing feudal lords with relatives and allies, who were free to rule within their domains under few restrictions. The Tokugawa shôguns prevented alliances against them by forbidding marriages among the other feudal lords' family members and by forcing them to spend every other year under the shôgun's eye in Edo (now Tôkyô), the shogunal capital — in a kind of organized hostage system.It was the third shôgun, Tokugawa Iemitsu, who enforced isolation from much of the rest of the world in the seventeenth century, believing that influences from abroad (meaning trade, Christianity, and guns) could shift the balance that existed between the shôgun and the feudal lords. He was proven right two centuries later, when change came in the form of Perry's ships.

Japan's ResponseUpon seeing Perry's fleet sailing into their harbor, the Japanese called them the "black ships of evil mien (appearance)." Many leaders wanted the foreigners expelled from the country, but in 1854 a treaty was signed between the United States and Japan which allowed trade at two ports. In 1858 another treaty was signed which opened more ports and designated cities in which foreigners could reside. The trade brought much foreign currency into Japan disrupting the Japanese monetary system. Because the ruling shôgun seemed unable to do anything about the problems brought by the foreign trade, some samurai leaders began to demand a change in leadership. The weakness of the Tokugawa shogunate before the Western demand for trade, and the disruption this trade brought, eventually led to the downfall of the Shogunate and the creation of a new centralized government with the emperor as its symbolic head.

3

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Japan : History of Japan's Ancient and Modern Empire (Full Documentary)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOGzqk_F4rE - Watch from 2:32:15 – 2:41:45Focus on the American Ships in Japan, what resources American wanted in Japan, Japanese reactions to the American ships, Matthew Perry, What did the Japanese decide to do?

Highlight and take notes from the following website:

The Meiji Restoration and Modernization - http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_meij i .htm

In 1868 the Tokugawa shôgun ("great general"), who ruled Japan in the feudal period, lost his power and the emperor was restored to the supreme position. The emperor took the name Meiji ("enlightened rule") as his reign name; this event was known as the Meiji Restoration.The Reign of the Meiji EmperorWhen the Meiji emperor was restored as head of Japan in 1868, the nation was a militarily weak country, was primarily agricultural, and had little technological development. It was controlled by hundreds of semi-independent feudal lords. The Western powers — Europe and the United States — had forced Japan to sign treaties that limited its control over its own foreign trade and required that crimes concerning foreigners in Japan be tried not in Japanese but in Western courts. When the Meiji period ended, with the death of the emperor in 1912, Japan had:

· a highly centralized, bureaucratic government;· a constitution establishing an elected parliament;· a well-developed transport and communication system;· a highly educated population free of feudal class restrictions;· an established and rapidly growing industrial sector based on the latest technology; and· a powerful army and navy.

4

Japan had regained complete control of its foreign trade and legal system, and, by fighting and winning two wars (one of them against a major European power, Russia), it had established full independence and equality in international affairs. In a little more than a generation, Japan had exceeded its goals, and in the process had changed its whole society. Japan's success in modernization has created great interest in why and how it was able to adopt Western political, social, and economic institutions in so short a time.One answer is found in the Meiji Restoration itself. This political revolution "restored" the emperor to power, but he did not rule directly. He was expected to accept the advice of the group that had overthrown the shôgun, and it was from this group that a small number of ambitious, able, and patriotic young men from the lower ranks of the samurai emerged to take control and establish the new political system. At first, their only strength was that the emperor accepted their advice and several powerful feudal domains provided military support. They moved quickly, however, to build their own military and economic control. By July 1869 the feudal lords had been requested to give up their domains, and in 1871 these domains were abolished and transformed into prefectures of a unified central state.The feudal lords and the samurai class were offered a yearly stipend, which was later changed to a one-time payment in government bonds. The samurai lost their class privileges, when the government declared all classes to be equal. By 1876 the government banned the wearing of the samurai's swords; the former samurai cut off their top knots in favor of Western-style haircuts and took up jobs in business and the professions.

The armies of each domain were disbanded, and a national army based on universal conscription was created in 1872, requiring three years' military service from all men, samurai and commoner alike. A national land tax system was established that required payment in money instead of rice, which allowed the government to stabilize the national budget. This gave the government money to spend to build up the strength of the nation.

Resistance and Rebellion DefeatedAlthough these changes were made in the name of the emperor and national defense, the loss of privileges brought some resentment and rebellion. When the top leadership left to travel in Europe and the United States to study Western ways in 1872, conservative groups argued that Japan should reply to Korean's refusal to revise a centuries old treaty with an invasion. This would help patriotic samurai to regain their importance. But the new leaders quickly returned from Europe and reestablished their control, arguing that Japan should concentrate on its own modernization and not engage in such foreign adventures.For the next twenty years, in the 1870s and 1880s, the top priority remained domestic reform aimed at changing Japan's social and economic institutions along the lines of the model provided by the powerful Western nations. The final blow to conservative samurai came in the 1877 Satsuma rebellion, when the government's newly drafted army, trained in European infantry techniques and armed with modern Western guns, defeated the last resistance of the traditional samurai warriors. With the exception of these few samurai outbreaks, Japan's domestic transformation proceeded with remarkable speed, energy, and the cooperation of the people. This phenomenon is one of the major characteristics of Japan's modern history.Ideology

In an effort to unite the Japanese nation in response to the Western challenge, the Meiji leaders created a civic ideology centered around the emperor. Although the emperor wielded no political power, he had long been viewed as a symbol of Japanese culture and historical continuity. He was the head of the Shintô religion, Japan's native religion. Among other beliefs, Shintô holds that the emperor is descended from the sun goddess and the gods who created Japan and

5

therefore is semidivine. Westerners of that time knew him primarily as a ceremonial figure. The Meiji reformers brought the emperor and Shintô to national prominence, replacing Buddhism as the national religion, for political and ideological reasons. By associating Shintô with the imperial line, which reached back into legendary times, Japan had not only the oldest ruling house in the world, but a powerful symbol of age-old national unity.The people seldom saw the emperor, yet they were to carry out his orders without question, in honor to him and to the unity of the Japanese people, which he represented. In fact, the emperor did not rule. It was his "advisers," the small group of men who exercised political control, that devised and carried out the reform program in the name of the emperor.

Social and Economic ChangesThe abolition of feudalism made possible tremendous social and political changes. Millions of people were suddenly free to choose their occupation and move about without restrictions. By providing a new environment of political and financial security, the government made possible investment in new industries and technologies.The government led the way in this, building railway and shipping lines, telegraph and telephone systems, three shipyards, ten mines, five munitions works, and fifty-three consumer industries (making sugar, glass, textiles, cement, chemicals, and other important products). This was very expensive, however, and strained government finances, so in 1880 the government decided to sell most of these industries to private investors, thereafter encouraging such activity through subsidies and other incentives. Some of the samurai and merchants who built these industries established major corporate conglomerates called zaibatsu, which controlled much of Japan's modern industrial sector.The government also introduced a national educational system and a constitution, creating an elected parliament called the Diet. They did this to provide a good environment for national growth, win the respect of the Westerners, and build support for the modern state. In the Tokugawa period, popular education had spread rapidly, and in 1872 the government established a national system to educate the entire population. By the end of the Meiji period, almost everyone attended the free public schools for at least six years. The government closely controlled the schools, making sure that in addition to skills like mathematics and reading, all students studied "moral training," which stressed the importance of their duty to the emperor, the country and their families.The 1889 constitution was "given" to the people by the emperor, and only he (or his advisers) could change it. A parliament was elected beginning in 1890, but only the wealthiest one percent of the population could vote in elections. In 1925 this was changed to allow all men (but not yet women) to vote.To win the recognition of the Western powers and convince them to change the unequal treaties the Japanese had been forced to sign in the 1850s, Japan changed its entire legal system, adopting a new criminal and civil code modeled after those of France and Germany. The Western nations finally agreed to revise the treaties in 1894, acknowledging Japan as an equal in principle, although not in international power.

The International Climate: Colonialism and ExpansionIn 1894 Japan fought a war against China over its interest in Korea, which China claimed as a vassal state. The Korean peninsula is the closest part of Asia to Japan, less than 100 miles by sea, and the Japanese were worried that the Russians might gain control of that weak nation. Japan won the war and gained control over Korea and gained Taiwan as a colony. Japan's sudden, decisive victory over China surprised the world and worried some European powers.

6

At this time the European nations were beginning to claim special rights in China — the French, with their colony in Indochina (today's Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), were involved in South China; the British also claimed special rights in South China, near Hong Kong, and later the whole Yangtze valley; and the Russians, who were building a railway through Siberia and Manchuria, were interested in North China. After Japan's victory over China, Japan signed a treaty with China which gave Japan special rights on China's Liaotung peninsula, in addition to the control of Taiwan. But Japan's victory was short lived. Within a week, France, Russia, and Germany combined to pressure Japan to give up rights on the Liaotung peninsula. Each of these nations then began to force China to give it ports, naval bases, and special economic rights, with Russia taking the same Liaotung peninsula that Japan had been forced to return.The Japanese government was angered by this incident and drew the lesson that for Japan to maintain its independence and receive equal treatment in international affairs, it was necessary to strengthen its military even further. By 1904, when the Russians were again threatening to establish control over Korea, Japan was much stronger. It declared war on Russia and, using all its strength, won victory in 1905 (beginning with a surprise naval attack on Port Arthur, which gained for Japan the control of the China Sea). Japan thus achieved dominance over Korea and established itself a colonial power in East Asia.

SummaryThe most important feature of the Meiji period was Japan's struggle for recognition of its considerable achievement and for equality with Western nations. Japan was highly successful in organizing an industrial, capitalist state on Western models. But when Japan also began to apply the lessons it learned from European imperialism, the West reacted negatively. In a sense Japan's chief handicap was that it entered into the Western dominated world order at a late stage. Colonialism and the racist ideology that accompanied it, were too entrenched in Western countries to allow an "upstart," nonwhite nation to enter the race for natural resources and markets as an equal. Many of the misunderstandings between the West and Japan stemmed from Japan's sense of alienation from the West, which seemed to use a different standard in dealing with European nations than it did with a rising Asian power like Japan.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Rise of Modern Japan - The Meiji Restoration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-4fUL0Vo0What happened in the 1867 Revolt? 3:25 – 4:30

What did the Meiji Restoration focus on? 4:30 -5:35

How did Japan change economically with industrialization? 8:15 – 9:40

7

United States and Russia

Read, highlight and take notes from the following source:

29. Manifest Destiny- http://www.ushistory.org/us/29.asp

Expansion westward seemed perfectly natural to many Americans in the mid-nineteenth century. Like the Massachusetts Puritans who hoped to build a "city upon a hill, "courageous pioneers believed that America had a divine obligation to stretch the boundaries of their noble republic to the Pacific Ocean. Independence had been won in the Revolution and reaffirmed in the War of 1812. The spirit of nationalism that swept the nation in the next two decades demanded more territory. The "every man is equal" mentality of the Jacksonian Era fueled this optimism. Now, with territory up to the Mississippi River claimed and settled and the Louisiana Purchase explored, Americans headed west in droves. Newspaper editor JOHN O'SULLIVAN coined the term "MANIFEST DESTINY" in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset.

A symbol of Manifest Destiny, the figure "Columbia" moves across the land in advance of settlers, replacing darkness with light and ignorance with civilization.

The religious fervor spawned by the Second Great Awakening created another incentive for the drive west. Indeed, many settlers believed that God himself blessed the growth of the American nation. The Native Americans were considered heathens. By Christianizing the tribes, American missionaries believed they could save souls and they became among the first to cross the Mississippi River.

Economic motives were paramount for others. The fur trade had been dominated by European trading companies since colonial times. German immigrant John Jacob Astor was one of the first American entrepreneurs to challenge the Europeans. He became a millionaire in the process. The desire for more land brought aspiring homesteaders to the frontier. When gold was discovered in California in 1848, the number of migrants increased even more.

At the heart of manifest destiny was the pervasive belief in American cultural and racial superiority. Native Americans had long been perceived as inferior, and efforts to "civilize" them had been widespread since the days of John Smith and MILES STANDISH. The Hispanics who ruled Texas and the lucrative ports of California were also seen as "backward."

Expanding the boundaries of the United States was in many ways a cultural war as well. The desire of southerners to find more lands suitable for cotton cultivation would eventually spread slavery to these regions. North of the Mason-Dixon line, many citizens were deeply concerned about adding any more slave states. Manifest destiny touched on issues of religion, money, race, patriotism, and morality. These clashed in the 1840s as a truly great drama of regional conflict began to unfold.

8

The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny (US History EOC Review - USHC 2.2)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ClU_kS4uiY

Watch from 3:00-

The Mexican-American War in 5 Minutes- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7AXuxcUleY

Take notes on the following lecture from Mr. Wood’s Website: APUSH Review: Mexican-American War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z066CK0-H5E

9

Anti-Imperial ResistancesThe Cherokee in the United States

Our History- http:/ /www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Facts/OurHistory.aspx

A Proud Heritage

Since the earliest contact with European explorers in the 16th century, the Cherokee people have been consistantly identified as one of the most socially and culturally advanced of the Native American tribes. Cherokee culture thrived many hundreds of years before initial European contact in the southeastern area of what is now the United States. Cherokee society and culture continued to develop, progressing and embracing cultural elements from European settlers. The Cherokee shaped a government and a society matching the most civilized cultures of the day.

Gold was discovered in Georgia in 1829. Outsiders were already coveting Cherokee homelands and a period of "Indian removals" made way for encroachment by settlers, prospectors and others. Ultimately, thousands of Cherokee men, women and children were rounded up in preparation for their "removal" at the order of President Andrew Jackson in his direct defiance of a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court ("[Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." - Andrew Jackson).

The Cherokee were herded at bayonet point in a forced march of 1,000 miles ending with our arrival in "Indian Territory," which is today part of the state of Oklahoma. Thousands died in the internment camps, along the trail itself and even after their arrival due to the effects of the journey.

Migration from the original Cherokee Nation began in the early 1800’s. Some Cherokees, wary of white encroachment, moved west on their own and settled in other areas of the country. A group known as the Old Settlers previously had voluntarily moved in 1817 to lands given them in Arkansas where they established a government and a peaceful way of life. Later, however, they were forced to migrate to Indian Territory.

White resentment of the Cherokee had been building and reached a pinnacle following the discovery of gold in northern Georgia. This discovery was made just after the the creation and passage of the original Cherokee Nation constitution and establishment of a Cherokee Supreme Court. Possessed by "gold fever" and a thirst for expansion, many white communities turned on their Cherokee neighbors. The U.S. government ultimately decided it was time for the Cherokees to be "removed"; leaving behind their farms, their land and their homes.

President Andrew Jackson's military command and almost certainly his life were saved thanks to the aid of 500 Cherokee allies at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. Unbelievably, it was Jackson who authorized the Indian Removal Act of 1830 following the recommendation of President James Monroe in his final address to Congress in 1825. Jackson, as president, sanctioned an attitude that had persisted for many years among many white immigrants. Even Thomas Jefferson, who often cited the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy as the model for the U.S. Constitution, supported Indian Removal as early as 1802.

The displacement of native people was not wanting for eloquent opposition. Senators Daniel Webster and Henry Clay spoke out against removal. The Reverend Samuel Worcester, missionary to the Cherokees, challenged Georgia’s attempt to estinguish Indian title to land in the state, actually winning his case before the Supreme Court.

Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832 and Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 1831 are considered the two most influential legal

10

decisions in Indian law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Georgia in the 1831 case, but in Worcester vs. Georgia, the court affirmed Cherokee sovereignty. President Andrew Jackson arrogantly defied the decision of the court and ordered the removal, an act that established the U.S. government’s precedent for the future removal of many Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.

The U.S. government used the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 to justify the removal. The treaty, signed by about 100 Cherokees known as the Treaty Party, relinquished all lands east of the Mississippi River in exchange for land in Indian Territory and the promise of money, livestock, various provisions, tools and other benefits.

When these pro-removal Cherokee leaders signed the Treaty of New Echota, they also signed their own death warrants, since the Cherokee Nation Council had earlier passed a law calling for the death of anyone agreeing to give up tribal land. The signing and the removal led to bitter factionalism and ultimately to the deaths of most of the Treaty Party leaders once the Cherokee arrived in Indian Territory. 

Opposition to the removal was led by Chief John Ross, a mixed-blood of Scottish and one-eighth Cherokee descent. The Ross party and most Cherokees opposed the New Echota Treaty, but Georgia and the U.S. government prevailed and used it as justification to force almost all of the 17,000 Cherokees from their southeastern homeland.

Under orders from President Jackson the U.S. Army began enforcement of the Removal Act. The Cherokee were rounded up in the summer of 1838 and loaded onto boats that traveled the Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers into Indian Territory. Many were held in prison camps awaiting their fate. 

An estimated 4,000 died from hunger, exposure and disease. The journey became a cultural memory as the "trail where they cried" for the Cherokees and other removed tribes. Today it is widely remembered by the general public as the "Trail of Tears". The Oklahoma chapter of the Trail of Tears Association has begun the task of marking the graves of Trail survivors with bronze memorials.

History of Appalachian People in US | Appalachian mountains - Pt 1 || Documentary English subtitles- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DsmPmbFEQ4

Watch from 6:20 – 11:00, 26:30 – 29:25, 32:10 32:30

History of Appalachian People in US | Appalachian mountains - Pt 2 || Documentary English subtitles- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo3N1kM4NVU

11

Watch from 1:50 – 7:45 about the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears

12

The Zulu in South Africa

Take notes on the following reading-African Kingdoms Southern Africa- http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsAfrica/AfricaZulus.htm

Zulu Nationc.AD 1781 - Present Day

The Zulu were descended from the Nguni, a group that established itself in southern Africa in the seventeenth century. The Nguni were Bantu speakers who had been migrating down the eastern coast of Africa over the course of many centuries, with some groups arriving perhaps as early as the ninth century. Once in southern Africa, they formed into several clans of which the Zulu were a single example. They were originally a relatively unimportant tribe, but after Shaka was sponsored as the new Zulu king in 1816, he revolutionised Zulu warfare and established an empire. Zulu identity was subsequently shaped by both Shaka himself and a series of powerful successors.

According to oral tradition, the original Zulu chiefdom was established in the seventeenth century by the founding patriarch, Malandela. It was his son, Zulu, who gave his name to the people. 'Zulu' means 'heaven', and they became known as the amaZulu, the people of heaven. They settled in a region that would eventually become known as KwaZulu-Natal, flanked to the west by the Drakensburg Mountains and in the east by the Indian Ocean, a landscape of rolling hills, deep river gorges, and fertile grassland.

(Information by Mick Baker. Additional information from the BBC documentary series, Lost Kingdoms of Africa, first broadcast on 5 January 2010.)…

The death of Malandala at some point in the early seventeenth century sees the Nguni (or at least this particular branch) divided between his two sons, Qwabe and Zulu. According to tradition, the brothers fight, and such is the scale of death wreaked by Zulu and his warriors that they are exiled from the Nguni lands. This suggests that they are defeated, despite the high casualty rate inflicted on their opponents, and so Zulu leads his followers to the north (into modern Mozambique), where they prosper by trading with the Portuguese.…

In the space of twelve years, Shaka turns the small Zulu chiefdom into an empire that surpasses anything his father or the neighbouring tribes had envisaged. He goes from settlement to settlement, persuading the northern Nguni chieftains to join the newfound empire with his spear. This time of empire-building is called the Mfecane, or 'the crushing'. Those who refuse to cooperate can chose between death or exile, and the latter flee to the foothills of the Drakensburg Mountains. There they find the hunter-gatherers known as the sand people who record their arrival in rock paintings that survive to this day.

As the backbone of the new Zulu nation, Shaka builds on recent developments by other chiefs by introducing a system of conscription, and dividing his soldiers into regiments, or amabutu. These would revolutionise Zulu society by removing young warriors from their homes and their people to train them fully and bind them in loyalty to their king. He also introduces new fighting methods and weapons (the short stabbing spear to replace the long throwing spear), and a battle formation that would become known as the 'Horns of the Buffalo'.

While Shaka is in the process of increasing the population of the Zulu nation from an initial 300,000 to a quarter of a million during his reign, the rest of southern Africa is also changing. A group of British traders land in the swampy land on the east coast of Africa that subsequently grows into the city of Durban. The traders form a base and quickly make contact with Shaka. They start trading with the Zulu from wooden huts in Britain's first outpost in the region.

Shaka is assassinated by his half-brothers, Dingane and Mpande, who seize the kingdom and rule in turn after him. His death marks a break with the past. Dingane constructs a new royal residence in the heart of the Zulu nation at Emakhosini Valley in 1829.

13

The site is uMgungundlovu, which houses between five and seven thousand people living in a cluster of around 1,500 beehive-shaped houses.

Groups of Boer settlers, the descendants of Dutch and German farmers set off from the Cape Colony to the east in search of new land. One group led by Piet Retief arrives in Zulu territory in early 1837 and, following some brief skirmishing with the Zulu, these 'Voortrekkers' are invited to uMgungundlovu to talk to the king. They arrive brandishing their weapons and appearing very arrogant to the Zulu, and at a subsequent leave-taking, they are seized by the Zulu at the command of Dingane. Taken to a hill just outside the royal compound, the seventy Boers are clubbed to death, one by one, with Piet Retief the last to die. The massacre confirms the European image of the Zulu as brutal barbarians.

Nine months after the Boer massacre, their compatriots select a new leader in Andreas Pretorias. He organises a commando of 470 Boers to take the fight to the Zulus. By December, the commando has advanced into Zulu territory. They set up a camp encircled by their wagons, with the gaps between wagons protected by wooden fences behind which is packed straw to protect the defenders. The large space in the centre of the circle is where their families and livestock will be positioned, safe from a native attack that will wash around the heavily protected wagons. This defensive position is known as a laager.

The attack takes place at dawn, but the defensive formation confuses the Zulu and the left horn attacks before the rest of the army is ready. It is thrown into the river with loses of around 3,000 due to its inability to engage the Boer riflemen with its short spears. The Battle of Blood River is a complete and shocking defeat for the Zulu while the Boers suffer three casualties, none of which are fatal.

The defeat at Blood River temporarily splits the kingdom in two. Pretorias and a force of four hundred Boers aid Mpande in a civil war against Dingane which results in the latter's overthrow and death. However, the kingdom is unstable and still in a state of shock, and three decades of instability follows.

Kingdoms.of.Africa - The.Zulu.Kingdom - Ep 6/8 HD- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuWvAKKhGOg

Watch from 3:50 – 6:10 How did the Zulu change from a regional people to a stronger kingdom with European trade? (include a few details about Shaka Zulu)

Where else has trade allowed a civilization to grow and become powerful?

10:28- 12:15 How did the ibutho regiment system of the military shape and effect life for the Zulu?

15:05 – 16:42 How did Shaka Zulu use improved military with short spears?

21:35 – 22:4514

How did Shaka Zulu turn the Zulu into an empire and what was “The Crushing”?

How were the Zulu military similar to the Mongols?

31:05- 33:00How did Shaka Zulu die?

Describe how strong the Zulu were under their new ruler Dingane

Knowing what we know about the Industrial Revolution, how would the Zulu match up against a European Power?

Serbian Revolution- Breaking away from the Ottoman EmpireRead and take notes for the following article for Wikipedia:

The Serbian Revolution was the national uprising and constitutional change in Serbia that took place between 1804 and 1835, during which this territory evolved from an Ottoman province into a rebel territory, a constitutional monarchy and a modern Serbia.[1] The first part of the period, from 1804 to 1815, was marked by a violent struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire with two armed uprisings taking place, ending with a ceasefire. The later period (1815–1835) witnessed a peaceful consolidation of political power of the increasingly autonomous Serbia, culminating in the recognition of the right to hereditary rule by Serbian princes in 1830 and 1833 and the territorial expansion of the young monarchy.[2] The adoption of the first written Constitution in 1835 abolished feudalism and serfdom,[3] and made the country suzerain.[2] The term Serbian Revolution was coined by a German academic historiographer, Leopold von Ranke, in his book Die Serbische Revolution, published in 1829.[4] These events marked the foundation of modern Serbia.[5]

The Proclamation (1809) by Karađorđe in the capital Belgrade probably represented the apex of the first phase. It called for national unity, drawing on Serbian history to demand the freedom of religion and formal, written rule of law, both of which the Ottoman Empire had failed to provide. It also called on Serbs to stop paying taxes to the Porte, deemed unfair as based on religious affiliation. Apart from dispensing with poll tax on non-Muslims (jizya), the revolutionaries also abolished all feudal obligations in 1806, only 15 years after the French revolution, peasant and serf emancipation thus representing a major social break with the past. The rule of Miloš Obrenović consolidated the

15

achievements of the Uprisings, leading to the proclamation of the first constitution in the Balkans and the establishment of the oldest Balkan institution of higher learning still in existence, the Great Academy of Belgrade (1808). In 1830 and again in 1833, Serbia was recognized as an autonomous principality, with hereditary princes paying annual tribute to the Porte. Finally, de facto independence came in 1868, with the withdrawal of Ottoman garrisons from the principality; de jure independence was formally recognized at the Congress of Berlin in 1878.

During almost 5-10 years of the First Serbian Uprising (1804–1813), Serbia perceived itself as an independent state for the first time after 300 years of Ottoman and short-lasting Austrian occupations. Encouraged by the Russian Empire, the demands for self-government within Ottoman Empire in 1804 evolved into a war for independence by 1807. Combining patriarchal peasant democracy with modern national goals the Serbian revolution was attracting thousands of volunteers among the Serbs from across the Balkans and Central Europe. The Serbian Revolution ultimately became a symbol of the nation-building process in the Balkans, provoking peasant unrests among the Christians in both Greece and Bulgaria. Following the successful siege with 25,000 men, on 8 January 1807 the charismatic leader of the revolt Karađorđe Petrović proclaimed Belgrade the capital of Serbia.

First Serbian Uprising (1804–1813)Serbs responded to the Ottoman brutalities by establishing its separate institutions: Governing Council (Praviteljstvujušči Sovjet), the Great Academy (Velika škola), the Theological Academy (Bogoslovija) and other administrative bodies. Karađorđe and other revolutionary leaders sent their children to the Great Academy, which had among its students also Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787–1864), the famous reformer of the Serbian alphabet. Belgrade was repopulated by local military leaders, merchants and craftsmen but also by an important group of enlightened Serbs from the Habsburg Empire who gave a new cultural and political framework to the egalitarian peasant society of Serbia. Dositej Obradović, a prominent figure of the Balkan Enlightenment, the founder of the Great Academy, became the first Minister of Education of Serbia in 1811.

Following the French invasion in 1812 the Russian Empire withdrew its support for the Serb rebels; unwilling to accept anything less than independence, One quarter of Serbia's population (at the moment around 100,000 people) were exiled into Habsburg Empire, including the leader of the Uprising, Karađorđe Petrović.[1] Recaptured by the Ottomans in October 1813, Belgrade became a scene of brutal revenge, with hundreds of its citizens massacred and thousands sold into slavery as far as Asia. Direct Ottoman rule also meant the abolition of all Serbian institutions and the return of Ottoman Turks to Serbia.

Hadži-Prodan's Revolt (1814)[edit]

Despite the lost battle, the tensions nevertheless persisted. In 1814 an unsuccessful Hadži Prodan's revolt was launched by Hadži Prodan Gligorijević, one of the veterans of the First Serbian Uprising. He knew the Turks would arrest him, so he thought it would be the best to resist the Ottomans; Miloš Obrenović, another veteran, felt the time was not right for an uprising and did not provide assistance.

Hadži Prodan's Uprising soon failed and he fled to Austria. After a riot at a Turkish estate in 1814, the Turkish authorities massacred the local population and publicly impaled 200 prisoners at Belgrade.[1] By March 1815, Serbs have held several meetings and decided upon a new revolt.

16

Second Serbian Uprising (1815–1817)[edit]

The Second Serbian Uprising (1815–1817) was a second phase of the national revolution of the Serbs against the Ottoman Empire, which erupted shortly after the brutal annexation of the country to the Ottoman Empire and the failed Hadži Prodan's revolt. The revolutionary council proclaimed an uprising in Takovo on April 23, 1815, with Miloš Obrenović chosen as the leader (while Karađorđe was still in exile in Austria). The decision of the Serb leaders was based on two reasons. First, they feared a general massacre of knezes. Second, they learned that Karađorđe was planning to return from exile in Russia. The anti-Karađorđe faction, including Miloš Obrenović, was anxious to forestall Karađorđe and keep him out of power.[1]

Fighting resumed at Easter in 1815, and Miloš became supreme leader of the new revolt. When the Ottomans discovered this they sentenced all of its leaders to death. The Serbs fought in battles at Ljubic, Čačak, Palez, Požarevac and Dublje and managed to reconquer the Pashaluk of Belgrade. Miloš advocated a policy of restraint:[1] captured Ottoman soldiers were not killed and civilians were released. His announced goal was not independence but an end to abusive misrule.

Wider European events now helped the Serbian cause. Political and diplomatic means in negotiations between the Prince of Serbia and the Ottoman Porte, instead of further war clashes coincided with the political rules within the framework of Metternich's Europe. Prince Miloš Obrenović, an astute politician and able diplomat, in order to confirm his hard won loyalty to the Porte in 1817 ordered the assassination of Karađorđe Petrović. The final defeat of Napoleon in 1815 raised Turkish fears that Russia might again intervene in the Balkans. To avoid this the sultan agreed to make Serbia suzerain- semi independent state nominally responsible to the Porte.

Serbian Revolution 1804 – 1833- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R40fw8j7k2c

III.New Racial Ideologies, especially social Darwinism, facilitated and justified imperialism

Take notes on the following video from Mr. Wood’s Website - European Imperialism for Dummies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_rHrGaoh4wWatch from – 3:15 – 5:20

Take notes on: Nationalism, Balance of Power, “White Man’s Burden,”

17

Social DarwinismI. Introduction

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a "law of the jungle." But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.

The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility.

II. Origins

Social Darwinism originated in Britain during the second half of the 19th century. Darwin did not address human evolution in his most famous study, On the Origin of Species (1859), which focused on the evolution of plants and animals. He applied his theories of natural selection specifically to people in The Descent of Man (1871), a work that critics interpreted as justifying cruel social policies at home and imperialism abroad. The Englishman most associated with early social Darwinism, however, was sociologist Herbert Spencer. Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" to describe the outcome of competition between social groups. In Social Statics (1850) and other works, Spencer argued that through competition social evolution would automatically produce prosperity and personal liberty unparalleled in human history.

In the United States, Spencer gained considerable support among intellectuals and some businessmen, including steel manufacturer Andrew Carnegie, who served as Spencer's host during his visit to the United States in 1883. The most prominent American social Darwinist of the 1880s was William Graham Sumner, who on several occasions told audiences that there was no alternative to the "survival of the fittest" theory. Critics of social Darwinism seized on these comments to argue that Sumner advocated a "dog-eat-

18

dog" philosophy of human behavior that justified oppressive social policies. Some later historians have argued that Sumner's critics took his statements out of context and misrepresented his views.

III. Hereditarianism

Studies of heredity contributed another variety of social Darwinism in the late 19th century. In Hereditary Genius (1869), Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist and Darwin's cousin, argued that biological inheritance is far more important than environment in determining character and intelligence. This theory, known as hereditarianism, met considerable resistance, especially in the United States. Sociologists and biologists who criticized hereditarianism believed that changes in the environment could produce physical changes in the individual that would be passed on to future generations, a theory proposed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 19th century. After 1890, hereditarianism gained increasing support, due in part to the work of German biologist August Weismann. Weismann reemphasized the role of natural selection by arguing that a person's characteristics are determined genetically at conception.

Take notes here

IV. The Struggle School

Toward the end of the 19th century, another strain of social Darwinism was developed by supporters of the struggle school of sociology. English journalist Walter Bagehot expressed the fundamental ideas of the struggle school in Physics and Politics (1872), a book that describes the historical evolution of social groups into nations. Bagehot argued that these nations evolved principally by succeeding in conflicts with other groups. For many political scientists, sociologists, and military strategists, this strain of social Darwinism justified overseas expansion by nations (imperialism) during the 1890s. In the United States, historian John Fiske and naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan drew from the principles of social Darwinism to advocate foreign expansion and the creation of a strong military.

V. Reform Darwinism

After 1890, social reformers used Darwinism to advocate a stronger role for government and the introduction of various social policies. This movement became known as reform Darwinism. Reform Darwinists argued that human beings need new ideas and institutions as they adapt to changing conditions. For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. reasoned that the Constitution of the United States should be reinterpreted in light of changing circumstances in American society.

19

Some reformers used the principles of evolution to justify sexist and racist ideas that undercut their professed belief in equality. For example, the most extreme type of reform Darwinism was eugenics, a term coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883 from the Greek word eügenáv, meaning well-born. Eugenists claimed that particular racial or social groups–usually wealthy Anglo-Saxons–were "naturally" superior to other groups. They proposed to control human heredity by passing laws that forbid marriage between races or that restrict breeding for various social "misfits" such as criminals or the mentally ill.

Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism- https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=3FmEjDaWqA4

Watch from 0:55- 1:25, 26:15 – 42:10

Watch the following video on Mr. Wood’s Webpage form 2:40 – 4:15 - The Biology of the Second Reich: Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n900e80R30

20