Why did the U.S. not enter the war?

One main reason that the United States took so long to enter the war was that it really wasn't clear which side we belonged on. A significant percentage of the population were first or second generation immigrants, and therefore still felt some sort of loyalty to their country of origin. So opinions on the war varied-of course those of German descent or origin were often in sympathy with Germany's plight. Those of Irish descent or origin were usually anti-British...but not necessarily pro-German. American idealism sided more with the British and French, but they had allied with the Russians. There was also a wave of pro-English feeling throughout the country at the time, and the U.S. had been producing war material for the Allies. The United States took so long to enter the war because the population was not clearly for one side or the other. The U.S. did not get involved until it was clear which side we belonged.

How did Europeans define civilization? Do you agree? Do you have an alternative definition?

Europeans considered only those cultures that were similar to theirs to be "civilized". European countries, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were the only ones who received "civilized" status in the eyes of Europe. I disagree with their definition. European civilization is not the only form of civilization, and Europeans did not alot any respect for other cultures. The Japanese, for example, had a highly organized and structured society. However, Europeans considered countries like Japan to be "backward". In my opinion, civilization is better defined as any kind of structured society.

What was so "revolutionary" about the "Industrial Revolution"?

The effects of the Industrial Revolution are still felt immensely in today's society. Perhaps the most revolutionary change in social structure that occured during the rev. was the growth of cities. In Britain by 1850, what had previously been a predominantly rural population had now grown and moved to cities, resulting in 31 cities with over 50,000 people. This urbanization soon spread with industrialism. Life changed dramatically for many-small farmers could no longer make a living doing what they were doing. Many had little choice but to move to the cities. There were many things "revolutionary" about the Industrial Revolution...industrialism itself was extremely revolutionary...urbanization is just a major one.

Napoleon: Enlightened or not?

There is no doubt that Napoleon was an intelligent man. He was an excellent military leader. Napoleon's fall was that his entire empire was based on military supremacy. As Hanjae said, some countries agreed to French rule for short-term benefit, but the people's loyalty belonged to their own countries, not to Napoleon and the French. Napoleon didn't realize that he couldn't simply use force to keep his empire together. In my opinion Napoleon was not enlightened. His greatest strength was his military, but quite frankly he didn't have very much else going for him.

Cartesian dualism

Descartes' philosophy, Cartesian dualism, is based around the creation of two different realities in the universe. These two different realities are thinking substance and extended substance. Thinking substance is everything inside the mind, while extended substance is everything outside the mind. Descartes recognized the importance of mathematics in the world around him. To him, everything in the physical half of the universe (extended substance) could be interpreted through formulas and equations. This philosophy is an example of the biggest difference between Bacon and Descartes, which is Descartes' use of mathematics.

Potosi now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3740134.stm

"Which monarch was more important –Peter the Great or Frederick Wilhelm?"

Peter the Great changed the country of Russia drastically, for better or for worse. His determination to westernize Russia entered into many aspects of life for the Russian people. He even banned some Russian customs, such as simply having a beard, and repeatedly attempted to make Russia more European. The creation of St. Petersburg is a very significant event in that it moved Russia's lean from Asia to Europe. Peter created a new Russian army, and took control of the Russian Orthodox Church. Although both very important monarchs, Peter the Great made a much larger impact on his country and Europe as a whole.

Was the eighteenth century, overall, a reasonably good time to live?

Generally speaking, life in eighteenth century Europe improved for those who were already living well, and got worse for those who already had it bad. Obviously, the wealthy noble class, the land owners, and aristocrats lived very well. The bourgeois' life tended to improve as well, although it was previously a solid lifestyle, for the line between bourgeois and nobility was no longer as clear. The stories of Thomas Pitt and Jean-Joseph Laborde exemplify this. As for the peasants and laboring class, quality of life lessened. In eastern Europe, a return of serfdom took away many peasants' liberties. Occasionally however, one who was poor would get lucky, and rise up through the social ranks. Opportunity existed moreso than previously.

What makes a “golden age”?

A "golden age" is a period of time when a large number of areas are making advancements and/or succeeding in some way. During a golden age, the economy is very strong. A strong economy allows for patronage of the arts and sciences. El Greco and Cervantes were products of the Siglo de Oro in Spain. Poussin and Pascal did their work in France under Louis XIV. Of course, saying a country went through a golden age is always refering to the elite of the country.

Prompt 2

Although I don't know much about this Adam Smith character yet, I think that mercantilism was a brilliant factor in improving economies during the 16th century. As Benny said in an earlier post, the 21st century is all about less government involvement in economic affairs. This is mainly due to what has happened as a result of too much government involvement during the last century. Government involvement is not a bad thing at all, if it is at the right place and time, although economists and Adam Smith would tear me apart for saying so. When a government is discreet about it, why shouldn't they help protect their country's economy. Mercantilism advanced international trade astronomically.

Prompt 1

Although I've already responded to this prompt, I was wondering a few things about it. I am confused about whether gold means literally gold and silver mines in the Americas, or if gold is a representation of financial gain through new trade routes. The answer is different for each meaning. Columbus set sail looking for a trade route to the East by way of sailing westward. He did this for glory, but also for gold, which here means financial gain for his country through the new trade route that he hoped to find. South America was explored mainly by those wishing to spread their religion on natives. While exploring the land gold was found, but this was not the reason for going there in the first place.

Prompt Three

Spain would have benefitted immensely by accepting both Catholics and Protestants. Although this was almost unheard of then, it would have decreased Spain's enemies, for Philip II was constantly attempting to do things for the better of his country but for Catholicism as well. One reason that Spain saw a decline in its power was because of depopulation. If Protestants were never sent out of the country (along with many other peoples), Spain's population would not have dropped by so much. If Philip had allowed Protestantism, he may not have had as much of a problem with the Protestant Elizabeth of England.

Prompt #1

The most important short-term motivation for European exploration in the New World was gold. Governments saw it as a continent full of undiscovered gold and silver that could add to their country's wealth. With this in mind Europeans began exploring the Americas, mining for precious metals. The Aztec and Incan civilations were conquered, and their people were used as slaves in the mines, to mine for gold, silver, and diamonds for the Spanish crown. Although spreading God's word was a major motivator, it was hardly ever the main reason for exploration. Country's monarchs were more willing to give out gold for voyages if there was a chance that the expedition would generate more gold. Sam Stewart