Course:HIST102/HIST102SECT98AMay09-ZoneOfInteractionATeam/Sarahs rough ideas

rough- points we may include

S.Africa and the Great Trek

B-Team statement -"As European presence increased in South Africa, many were forced to take part in the Great Trek eastward to avoid British rule or remain outside the sphere of their influence"

the Boers relied on slavery, key to the glut of agricultural products found in Cape Town, so much so that African born whites could not make a living. When the Brits won control of The Cape via the Napoleonic Wars, the Brits brought their Enlightened Liberal policies with them. This included the abolishment of slavery. The Boers were impelled to take on "The Great Trek" in order to maintain the key to their livelyhoods...Slaves.

the Boers exhibited a level of integration with the native African peoples. This can be exhibited in the mixed race dependants noted as numbering in their party. It can also be shown in the evolution of their own unique language Afrikaans, a combination of Dutch, native tongue and other...likely other European languages, like French via the Hugenots and German. Another example of the integration of cultures.

I theorized that the complete acceptance of Blacks amongst the Voortrekkers, illustrated by their stuborn belief in Aparthied into the 20th century, could have to do with the attitudes of the native africans themselves. The natives have a long history of migration and overwhelming population growth, resulting in pressures only releived by intense conflict over resources. This can be illustrated by the extermination of peoples by indigenous wars, freeing up the land the vooertrekers moved into. Such long held attitudes of self preservation on the part of the indigens could affect the attitudes of the vooertrekers towards them. SarahAnnMariePreston 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[sept 9 10PM]

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire

Team B states that isolation and suppression of foreign ideas were an attempt at protecting the cultural integrity of the Ottoman empire, as is the arming of borders. However, it is not the attempt of ideas getting in that caused collapse, but the attempt to suppress and prevent social change. Allowing the natural process of social change and the evolution of culture, is to allow stability, or an equilibrium, to be established. These supressive efforts are counterproductive and far more long lasting.

My opinion on the Ottoman Empire and it's collapse is that it's isolationist policies, it's suppression of new ideas and it's lack of acknowledgment of the cultural diversity within the bounds of it's Empire lead to it's ultimate demise. It's unwillingness to accept social change and welcome cultural diversity smothered any form of integration that may have occured. Because of this, the peoples the Ottomans conquered and added to their domain remained seperate, held together only by military might backing the control of their resources. No society can remain a closed system and survive economicly, no culture can remain static. Traditions and ideas, even isolated from the influences from others, will change generation to generation. Even isolated, the Ottoman Empire contained such cultural diversity as to be considered, in my mind, equal to foregin influence. Unable to force assimilation of these peoples into the ruling Ottoman culture to create stability, and unwilling to acknowledge and welcome these differences, it was only a matter of time before strength and resources were unable to hold the Empire together.SarahAnnMariePreston 04:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[Sept 9 9:38PM]

B-team Statements "In Europe, countries that were able to maintain their dominant ideology and defend their borders such as England, France, and Spain became the most powerful countries."

{these countries became powerful due to control of long distance trade....ie. positive, beneficial interaction between diff. cultures. adaptation- learn languages and "pleasantries" such as avoidance of social fo-pa's....ie adoption of Islamic religion in Africa for the purpose of trade, or the development of a trade language like swahili}

"In Europe, countries that were able to maintain their dominant ideology and defend their borders, such as England, France, and Spain, became the most powerful countries"

{these countries became powerful because they acknowledged the demands of their people for equality and developed strong central governments due to this appeasement. Their dominant ideaologies changed in this process. For example, a comparison of the approach to exploration of Captain Cook and the dominant ideaologies of his time period, and those of Cortez. Very different, and due to the social change instigated by rebellion and new enlightened ideas having occured in England by Cooks time.}

"Foreign influence began to penetrate the Empire’s borders through trade and education. Factors such as these contributed to the Empire’s demise." {my notes on the ottoman empire show that education was restricted to military technology, and at that, restricted to small private corps. My research also states that western ideas were understood by very few and disregarded by most in favor of traditional thought.} SarahAnnMariePreston 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[sept 9 10;40pm]