World History Homework Nine Answers - Student Thirteen

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Michelle F


Studied further in advance.

Excellent point.


The religious disagreements in England were what caused the Pilgrims to leave, and if they had not left and established religious freedom in America, it is possible that the United States would not be free, or that they would not exist at all.



There probably was some small good that come out of it, but I have no idea what. This was a war in which the leaders had likely adopted the mentality of “the end justifies the means”, which is not a good way to lead a country, even in a revolution. Even if a good end did come, I don’t think that could have justified the senseless murder of innocent civilians. All of France became a slaughterhouse. There may have been some good, but I can’t see it.

Terrific, may use as a model answer.

4. Pick another revolution and describe it.

The Haitian revolution, in what was then called Saint-Dominique, was successful in procuring independence from France. The revolution started with 100,000 slaves and ended with the leading general being deviously captured and imprisoned until his death, and a general under him, Dessalines, successfully leading the country to independence.



I think the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment had something to do with it. The belief that all men are created equal and have equal rights did not start gaining widespread acceptance until that era. That belief would inevitably lead to a shift from the feudal type of government, and even monarchies, to a sort of republic, or democracy, in which everyone has a (theoretically) equal sway in matters of government. There would be two ways to go about doing this. One could, a) try to convince the current governing authorities to change the system, or, b) revolt and set up an entirely new system. The first option was not probable, so most countries would simply skip considering that step altogether, and revolt. I believe that the reason America’s revolution was less bloody than the French, is because the leaders of the American revolution considered all options rationally, and proceeded with caution.



Neither. I think that they both go hand in hand. I think that both are expressions of moods of the people. I don’t think that one leads the other; I would say that if one seems to be leading the other, it is simply manifesting itself earlier. I would say that in fact, it is the philosophers, thinkers, and scholars that lead both politics and art, because they are the most direct influence on the mood of the people.

Terrific, may use as a model.

H4. Comment on the theory or justification of a revolution, and what you think about it.

If a country, nation, or people is being oppressed, is that justification for revolting? Well, what is a revolt? I would say that a revolt is a dramatic and often forceful change of government. Is it wrong? I would say that it depends on the nature of the revolt. For example, the French revolution, which lost all semblance of any form of government, except anarchy. Is that right? My personal thought on the matter is that if you are going to cause that kind of upheaval and bloodshed, the new form of government had better be drastically better than the original, which the French government was not. What about the American Revolution? It showed forethought, rational thinking, and drastic improvement, all with minimal bloodshed. I would say that one cannot collectively justify or condemn of revolutions. There are just too many variables.

Superb again.
Terrific answers, among the best in the class. May use two of yours as model answers. Well done! 70/70.--Andy Schlafly 21:24, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Personal tools