How did the experiences of early colonists shape americas political and social ideals?
Many of the settlers left England as they were tired of the aristocracy ruling political and economic systems. The contrast between the British House of Lords (which until recently, you had to be appointed by the Queen/King and had to be of noble birth) and the US Senate (equal representation from all states regardless of size) indicates their desire to remove power away from an elite. Much of the US political system reflects this desire, with the separation of powers being the most important distinction. This was also fueled by that great american notion of 'opportunity' to be as successful as they could, without the restrictions of class, race or religion (remember - a lot of early immigrants were Irish, and Catholic and had faced prejudice in England). Hope that helps
Which of americas founding ideals was most strongly nurtured during the colonial american period?
Freedom of Religion. Ideally that's why the early settlers left England.
Is Latin America considered to be part of the Western World?
To the extent that Latin Americans mostly speak Western languages (Spanish or Portuguese overwhelmingly), follow Western religions (Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism), and live in countries with political structures and popular cultures heavily influenced by Europe and North America, yes, they're Western. Why wouldn't they be?From the perspective of Americans--I exclude Canadians because we don't really have that much of a particular focus on Latin America, the US being our buffer--the main reason why Latin Americans wouldn't be seen as Western could be that Latin Americans are relatively unpopular poor migrants. Samuel Huntington, who identified Latin America as a distinct civilization from the West, was also afraid that Latin American immigration would unmoor the United States from its WASP roots. You don't identify with people you don't like.From the Latin American perspective, I'd suggest that there could be two major factors at play. Many Latin American nations, notably Mexico, have emphasized in their nation-building process their non-Western roots, often Native American but frequently also African. Identifying as "Western" would be a renunciation of this nation-building process.Latin American identity has often been constructed as not being American. An identification by Latin Americans fearing American domination with the United States isn't going to happen.In a broader perspective, one major problem with including Latin America in the West is that Latin America doesn't belong to Western clubs. No Latin American country belongs to NATO, while Mexico and Chile are the only Latin American members of the OECD and they joined only in 1994 and 2010. More abstractly, since the mid-20th century no Latin American country has been economically developed, with once prosperous countries like Argentina and Uruguay and Venezuela being surpassed by southern Europe.Could this change? Conceivably, sure. Greater Latin American self-confidence, along with better relations between the United States and Latin America (and between Europe and Latin America) and a certain amount of economic growth, could lead to a reidentification. Might Brazil, for instance, be the next Western great power? Even if this doesn't happen, I would point out that even Huntington was unsure whether Latin America was distinct from the West in the way that China or India were. The two civilizations are clearly kindred.
How does imperialism contradict American ideals about liberty?
If we are truly for freedom, we should allow other states and countries to have that same freedom. Lately, though, the U.S. only allows freedom (i.e. democratic elections) if the outcome is favorable to the U.S. Imperialism... the wish to conquer the world... is not a fight for freedom for those nations we want under out thumb. The original idea of American freedom was that it would shine among nations and inspire non-democratic governments to follow suit. But of course now U.S. citizens are under many restrictions of freedom that were not intended by the signers of the Constitution and the welfare of the top 2% has aced liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the common man.
Why were Africans used as slaves instead of Native Americans?
It was largely a matter of logistics and socio-political influences. A summarized list of these elements would be as follows: Lack of immunity to diseases; high mortality rates made Natives a poor investment as slaves (e.g. they died off in greater numbers) Military strength of tribal nations sufficient enough to be a threat to the young colonies; taking Native slaves could be risky and sometimes costly endeavor. The African slave market was more convenient and cost-effective, compared to warring with tribes and trying to enslave a people that would either die quickly in bondage, or could escape more readily. Suicide was vastly more common at the point of enslavement. This was a sort of macabre market force. Those African slaves that made it through the gauntlet - being captured by slave raiders, amassed in horrific staging areas, and then taken across the sea in slave ships, were less likely to kill themselves after they arrived in the Americas. Natives being captured in their homelands and enslaved would often kill themselves (just as Africans were more prone to commit suicide in Africa during the initial stages of their enslavement). This is precisely why the Indian slave trade that did exist from the late 1600 until the early 1700s, actually sent the majority of Native slaves to the Caribbean, ironically, often in exchange for African slaves. The same principle was at play though...when the Indians arrived in these locations where Blacks made up the majority of the population, they had nowhere to run and seek freedom.Page on nih.govAfrican slaves, once brought to the Americans, were presumed to have slave status by the nature of their racial identity. Thus, it was easier to maintain the perpetual slave status of Blacks. There were few places an escaped Black slave could run and hide out, and nowhere to effectively maintain this freedom for any length of time (Maroon communities in North America were always of a fleeting nature). Natives were being treated as sovereign nations during the colonial era, and their individual freedom was acknowledge by default. Racial views varied, and Europeans saw Native Americans in a slightly more positive light - even as they sought to dispossess them and destroy their cultures. This question is similar to:Why were Native Americans never or not widely enslaved in America despite being coloured?
How did the Enlightenment influence the American Revolution?
The period of enlightenment was a period when people started to reason and question the order of things. everything was questioned even down right to religion. one of the most important Philosophes whose writing influenced the American revolution was John Locke. one of the ideas of John Locke- the idea of Natural rights (life, liberty and property) was fundamental to the American declaration of independence, which stated that “…all men… are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;…”. Hence when king George III started imposing taxes on them and punishing those who went against the various Acts , they saw it as an attack on their human rights.Also Locke and Rousseau’s ideas on social contract helped shape the minds of the leaders of the American revolution thereby affecting the revolution itself. in Rousseau’s social contract he argued that the only good government was the one freely formed by the people and guided by the “general will” of the society. John Locke in the Two treatises of government also argued that government should rule based on the consent of the governed. These ideas of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau formed the basis for the American revolutionary movement of popular sovereignty.Locke furthermore said in the two treatises of government that the citizens had a right to revolt against whatever government failed to protect their rights. It could be said that Thomas Paine an American who wrote the pamphlet titled “Common Sense” in 1776 drew his idea from Locke. He attacked the monarchy in his pamphlet and insisted that common Americans had the ability to be their own kings and were far more deserving of leadership posts than those who had worn English crowns. this idea was also reflected in the declaration of independence document wrote by Thomas Jefferson “…that whenever any form of government becomes destructive … it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” Hence the Americans felt the need for a revolution to “abolish” the government that had become “destructive”.
Is the USA a religious or secular country?
At the time the United States was founded, essentially all European nations had a state religion, and a monarch who ruled “by the grace of God,” or some similar formulation. When the United States chose not to enshrine a state religion, they became the original secular western nation. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and many others would eventually follow this path of secularization, but they were following a trail originally blazed by the United States. The Declaration of Independence describes our rights as granted by “Nature’s God,” but the constitution itself starts with the phrase “We the people,” and does not mention God at all.The United States constitution, then, is strictly secular. There is no state church and no state religion in any sense. Generally speaking, this has resulted in very little government influence over religious activities. There is a certain amount of deference to the idea of “nature’s God,” and this is referenced in the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, and on the coinage. But these references are usually kept as vague as possible; the idea was to keep it vague enough that adherents of any belief system could identify with it.At any rate, the United States is a legally secular country with a diverse, largely religious population. About 23% are not affiliated with any religious group, and 7% identify as atheist or agnostic. To Americans, freedom of religion includes both non-sponsorship and non-interference, including in public spaces. This results in plenty of tension over when non-interference becomes tacit endorsement. Most legislatures open their sessions with prayer, for example; this is considered reasonable as long as plenty of local religious groups occasionally get a turn. And in addition to Jews, Buddhists, and Moslems, we've also heard thoughts from atheists and occasionally had a few Satanist prayers opening city council meetings. If secularism means being even-handed, then I think the United States does it pretty well.On the other hand, if your definition of “secular” requires banning religion from the public square, and requiring that religion only operate in private, then the United States could be considered to be religious, rather than secular. But such a result feels to many Americans as though religion is being granted only second-class status, while giving a privileged position to irreligion; it is a tacit endorsement of atheism. That would be picking favorites, and would violate secularism.