History Western Europe and Christian Religion help please!!!!!?
The wording of your question leads me to believe that what your teacher wants most from you is an acknowledgment that all four religions gave people common ground. Religions gave people unity, allowed them to think of themselves as a single group; and it paved the way for them to come together politically (and militarily) as well. The Arabs fought and bickered among themselves prior to Islam, but Islam gave them a common goal. Because of this unity, they were able to conquer all of Northern Africa in fifty years. Likewise, the missionary movement to the barbarian invaders of Western Europe (after the fall of the Roman empire) paved the way for those who would later stabilize that part of the world, and helped enable Western Europe to become a legitimate world power. Your information concerning Islam (Arabia) is absolutely false. Islam began (for all intensive purposes) when Mohammed and his followers marched from Medina to Mecca, conquered the city, and destroyed all the idols there. There was no choice in the matter. They just destroyed the pagan religions. Islam did not "force" religion on Christians when they conquered Africa, but they forced them to pay higher taxes, did not permit them to build new churches, would not let them marry a Muslim, and forbad them to try to convert anyone, and they released them from these restrictions only if they converted. In my opinion, "I'm not forcing you, I'm just going to make your life really, really hard until you see things my way" is not tolerant. I agree with you that Charlemagne's campaign was spurred partly by religious motives (the desire to expand Christendom). However, to call Christianity the only religion among these four that attempted to spread by compulsion is both unfair and untrue.
What are the importance of political theory?
Utility and Significance of Political TheoryWhy should we study Political Theory?1. It is Relevant to Solving our Problems: Political Theory is closely related to a number of academic subjects such as history, ethics, sociology, economics and other areas of study. These subjects provide theories and data which political theorists use to construct political theory.2. Knowledge of Our Rights and Duties: A democratic government implies popular participation in political processes such as elections. We should know our rights, especially the right to vote. Our knowledge of political theory tells us that Right to Vote is not only a Right but a Duty as well. The voters should choose the best men.3. Political Theory Liberalizes the Outlook: By studying political theory, an individual may think more logically about concepts such as equality, liberty and justice. Political theory teaches us to be tolerant of other people's attitudes or beliefs. Liberty and Equality are not just abstract concepts; these concepts reflect ideals that we should try to follow. An intelligent citizen is committed to liberal ideals and civil liberties.4. Politics essentially is the Art of thePossible: Limitations on any government exist and we all can see them. A political system has to function under different kinds of compulsions and constraints. Anything is possible in politics. An understanding of politics can be helpful in appreciating factors which bring necessary changes in the society.5. A Growth in the Reasoning Powers of the Mind: A political concept is not merely a matter of faith or belief; it develops through a lot of reasoning. Different ideologies (liberalism, Marxism and socialism) have been subjected to verification and the political thinkers relied on 'facts' and 'practical experience'. Political theory generates a spirit of reasoning, which would help students to make arguments or statements when they participate in debates.
What was the impact of the French Revolution on Western Europe?
What were the problems that forced those in the Third Estate to take action? In what ways did nationalism become a force to be reckoned with during this revolution?
Need help interpreting/understanding this AP World History Essay Assignment. Please help. Will give 10 pts...?
The most telling term in this question is "post-classical." First of all what were the Classical societies? They were India, China, and Greece/Rome. So China, Byzantium, and Abbasid (?) were the "post-classical" societies, or the societies that followed the Classical societies. We know that Greece was followed by Rome which was followed by Byzantium (which eventually gave birth to Russia.) We also know that China has been a more or less persistent societal "area" since it's inception. You'll have to figure out what the Abbasid deal is, though I may go look it up and see what I can figure out. What does this phrase mean? Greece, India, and China were connected by the Silk Road. While this wasn't international trading on today's scale it's not something to be over looked. The network of traders between these societies is often cited as an example of how they were economic powerhouses. So when they collapsed (all within 400 years of each other -check me on that-) there was an economic vacuum left. The China, Byzantine, and Abbasid Empires filled this vacuum as best they could. What did all 3 of those powers have in common? I suspect that they all have direct lineage from the previous societies I mentioned, though the Abbasid could be Middle Eastern. If that is the case then you'll see that it was to see the most success of any of the societies in the coming centuries. How did those factors contribute to their political and economic effectiveness? You got me there, I'd have to study up on that.. which I may do depending on your interest. EDIT: There is no way of helping you develop a thesis without a discussion, which can't really be had here due to the set up. I could just -give- you a thesis but that wouldn't really help you much in the long run as a thesis is much more than the one sentence it represents in a paper (or at least it should be). The person below me knows quite a bit more about this subject than I do, so maybe your best shot is with her.
What is the best case for arguing that the 20th century Western history does not suggest cultural decline?
Prior to the 20th century, what we call "culture" was produced, enjoyed, and promoted by the relatively small portion of society that was educated. The 20th c. saw the empowerment and enrichment of the masses. For the first time in history, the average working man had the $ to consume and the time to enjoy cultural products: music, art, literature, etc. At the same time, technology opened new media that made access to these things not only available, but incessant--radio, television, and film. The result? A market for cultural items--songs, sitcoms, magazines, newspapers, etc.--that was dominated not, as in prior centuries, by the educated elite, but by the common man. Thus did demand for 'higher' cultural output (Beethoven, Tolstoy, Vermeer) become so heavily eclipsed by the demand for 'lower' culture (The Beach Boys, Dan Brown, Playboy). Essentially, the dominant culture is no longer the product of genius, but of mediocrity. However, all is not lost. Overall cultural output is far greater than ever before, and the prominence of the dumbed-down stuff does not negate the existence or quality of the works of genius that certainly continue to arise. Even today, hidden amongst the dozens of "Da Vinci Code"s are a few works like "Confederacy of Dunces." You won't turn on the TV and immediately see the conference discussions behind the National Book Award, but the quality art, music, filmmaking, and writing are out there. They just need to be found. Sometimes it takes years, but it still happens, and those who are looking will find that this century has produced more genius than any other before it, and the next one promises to be even better.