During the Age of Discovery the Spanish were now interacting with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which brought forth many questions on rights. There were definitely Spanish explorers who did not treat the Natives right and justly. For example they took their land, sold them into slavery, and with the introduction of diseases and other hardships these people began to die off. Back in Spain there were many prominent thinkers who completely disapproved of what was happening in the New World; but how exactly did the age of discovery provide an opportunity for Spanish thinkers to reflect on this idea of rights?
Because of all the wrongdoings done to the Natives of the New World, many of these prominent thinkers reconsidered and thought about the idea of rights. They realized that these things were being done to human beings which shared the natural fundamental rights. Also they concluded that it did not matter that these Natives had different views or beliefs than the Spanish because regardless they were rational human beings that shared the same natural rights as the Christian Europeans. This in turn brought forth the conclusion that there was a set of fundamental rights shared between all humans, regardless of religion, race, etc.
To conclude, though there were many individuals who believed that the Natives of the Americas should be treated as any other human being, that did not end the mistreatment and persecution of the Natives, which continued for many centuries.
As humans our bodies are capable of informing us of things such as you’re hungry, not feeling well, feeling well, etc. The cells and organs play an important role in letting us know of our body’s signals. Something that your body probably tells you a lot is if you are hungry or not hungry. But how does your body let you “know,” when you are feeling hungry or not hungry?
Sugar is vital to our cells, and when we have an empty stomach a hormone known as ghrelin is released which is thus why we feel hunger. Responding to this hunger we will most likely eat something, and this food goes down our digestion system. This food is processed, broken down, and our body’s receive the nutrients. Once our stomach is full the ghrelin hormone is suppressed, which is why you feel full after a meal. If your bloodstream has an excess of sugar your pancreas may release some insulin which suppresses your appetite, or to make you feel not hungry. Thus this is how your body “knows,” when you are hungry/not hungry.
After the Renaissance new styles of art began to develop. Though these new styles of art were quite similar in many aspects to the artistic styles during the Renaissance there were definitely differences. Two of these artistic styles are the artistic styles of Mannerism and Baroque.
The artistic style of mannerism is associated with mannerism paintings. Some of the characteristics of this art style when it comes to paintings include: unusual depictions of landscapes and scenes, they were unrealistic, and are usually dramatic pieces of art. Paintings in this artistic style are usually dark in color but with some color scattered throughout. Also the figures that were painted in this style were also very unusual looking with elongated bodies.
Baroque art can consist of painting, sculptures, music, architecture, etc. Some of the characteristic features of baroque art as of paintings include: use of dark colors, emotion, attention to detail, and dramatic scenes.
Thus these are some of the characteristic features of mannerism and baroque art.
Peter the Great(1672-1725), was tsar of Russia from 1682-1725 but was officially tsar on his own from 1696-1725. He was an interesting figure for his time in Russia; he was fascinated by the ways of western European countries, which he tried to replicate in Russia. But what was Peter the Great’s program for Russia?
Peter the Great, like I mentioned above, wanted to replicate the ways of western Europe in Russia which he was able to do. He saw the Russian way of life as primitive and even backwards so he created a program to enforce new changes on Russia. These changes included: all men had to shave their beards and cut their hair(if they did not they would face a tax), everyone had to dress in the western styles of dress, and women were given more opportunities for things like education. He also began to modernize the Russian army after an embarrassing defeat from the Swedish in 1700.
Peter the Great was not necessarily perceived as “great,” by everyone, especially those he targeted through extra taxes, etc. But regardless of how people thought of him he still brought Russia one step forward into the modern world, which was his program for Russia.
Ruled as elector of Prussia from 1640-1688; Frederick William had inherited the duchies of Brandenburg and Prussia. When he first began ruling Brandenburg was a very poor and rural area, which had been hit negatively by the Thirty Years War.
Frederick was able to achieve turning Prussia’s state from poor and struggling to a successful and thriving country. Other than turning around Prussia’s state he also created Germany’s first standing army, which was used to defend and grow his territory. To conclude, this was what Frederick William accomplished during his reign over Prussia.
Aeschylus was an ancient Greek playwright who wrote numerous plays, including one known as Agamemnon. Sadly only seven of his plays have survived today. His tragic play Agamemnon is about a king named Agamemnon who goes off to fight in the Trojan war, which was a war between the Trojans and the Greeks. Because Agamemnon revolves around the Trojan war, what was Aeschylus’ personal view of the Trojan war?
The Trojan War is rather a mystery since we do not know if it really took place or not, but regardless tales of the war are seen throughout the genre of ancient Greek literature. The Trojan war began when Helen, who was the wife of King Menelaus, was kidnapped by Paris of Troy. King Menelaus asked his brother Agamemnon to aid him in rescuing Helen. This was the start of a ten year long war in which at the end Troy is defeated. Agamemnon on the journey to Troy had to sacrifice his own daughter to the Greek goddess of Artemis who had stopped the wind which prevented Agamemnon from continuing his journey.
The Trojan war itself was full of death and tragedy, but in the end the Greeks were victorious. Agamemnon starts the journey home; this journey is without bumps in the road. But he returns home mostly unscathed with a prisionar, a woman named Cassandra who is a prophet and princess of Troy. Upon returning home Cassandra sees a prophecy that she and Agamemnon would be killed by Agamemnon’s wife Clytemnestra(who was very angry over his sacrifice of their daughter). In the end Agamemnon is murdered by his wife.
The play of Agamemnon portrays the Trojan war as just being tragic, full of loss and tragedy. It was a long war which began for a reason that did not exactly justify the amount of lives lost. Also the characters did terrible and tragic things throughout the story which all had to do with the war itself. For example with Agamemnon sacrificing his own daughter to continue on the journey to Troy, which influenced Clytemnestra to kill Agamemnon and Cassandra. Which in turn is why I believe that Aeschylus’ view was that the Trojan war was a waste, tragedy, and unnecessary. This view is seen pretty clearly throughout the play, especially in the most tragic details of it. Though the Greeks were victorious they paid a heavy price before, during, and after the Trojan war, which he showed through Agamemnon. But regardless of his seeming view he still wrote a play about the war.
The Trojan war is a common backdrop in ancient Greek literary pieces, for example in the Iliad, and the play Agamemnon by Aeschylus. Aeschylus portrayed the Trojan war as a tragic and wasteful war which was caused by something that was not justifiable for all the bloodshed caused. Thus why I believe that Aeschylus viewed the Trojan war as a tragic waste, which paid a heavy price on the parties involved.
After Charles II of Spain died Spain was without a proper heir. Becoming king of Spain was enticing to quite a few European monarchs because of Spain’s vast territory which in turn would make that heir quite powerful.
There was a lot at stake during this period; the countries of France, England, and the Dutch had the most at stake which forced them to be very cautious around each other, because if they were not disastrous consequences would occur. The thing most at stake was Spain itself since they were without a proper heir. Thus, this was what was at stake in the war of Spanish succession.
During the middle of the seventeenth century to the beginning of the 18th century France was ruled by Louis XIV. Louis was a ruler who personified the characteristics of an absolute ruler quite closely to the definition of absolutism. He was able to gain power from French noblemen and many public or government offices. During the latter half of the seventeenth century France was involved in some wars; what were the causes and outcomes of these wars?
The causes of these wars involving France included the fact that Louis wanted to expand France as a country. The outcome of these wars were not ideal at all for France. Poverty was common, the economy was on a low, and the population was also declining. Overall the wars involving France in the latter half of the seventeenth century did not benefit France in the long run.
In Europe a new economic policy known as Mercantilism began to emerge after the middle ages, which was adopted by quite a few European countries. But what were some of the key ideas that are associated with this economic theory of mercantilism?
The key ideas of mercantilism include: government intervention, competition was not seen as favorable and was pushed out by tariffs, and other restrictions. Monopolies were favored and granted with certain products, areas, and services. The most prominent key idea of mercantilism was stimulating exports and limiting imports, which was seen to make a country wealthier. This meant that a country would sell products to other countries but would not buy products from other countries.
This economic theory though it was a popular one to quite a few governments in actuality did not positively impact the economies of those countries, since it purely relied on government involvement and government control on the economy.
In Canada and the US the public schools are subsidized by the government, which means that these public schools are funded for by the state, which also by the means that they are paid for indirectly by taxpayer money which is the main source of income of the state. Besides that point, state-subsidized schools are funded more or less by the state. State-subsidized churches on the other hand are not a common thing anymore at least in Canada and the US, but they have existed in the past. But is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and schools?
Before answering this question one must first know of the similarities and differences between the two. The similarities between state-subsidized churches and schools include: both are funded primarily by the state, they are under state control, and they are both at risk to the state pushing out their own agenda. Of course the majority of people today would think it is ludicrous to have state-subsidized churches because what if the government begins to push out their own agenda, or enforce preaching the wrong message. I believe the majority of people believe that any form of religious worship should not be funded by the state. But why is this any different from state-subsidized schools?
What about the differences between the two? There is almost no difference between the two, the only difference is the fact that churches are a place of worship and schools are a place of learning. Because of the lack of differences between state subsidized churches and schools, why do the majority of people neglect to notice the fact that because public schools today are technically funded and run by the state, which means that it would be completely possible for the state to push out their own agenda when it comes to the curriculum. For example the public school system today portrays itself as a neutral institution that does not force upon beliefs, which is probably why people still believe that there is a difference between state subsidized churches and schools. But in actuality the state is quite capable of influencing the world views of the students through this set up of state subsidized schools. Thus state subsidized churches and schools are almost no different from each other, both have similar risks involved, and both are under state control.
In conclusion, though the majority of the churches today are not subsidized by the state. If you think of a situation in which they are, that situation would be very similar to the situation we are in today with state subsidized schools, which is why there is little difference between the two.