The Causes and Aims of World War One

The traditional explanation for the start of World War 1 concerns a domino effect. Once one nation went to war, usually defined as Austria-Hungary’s decision to attack Serbia, a network of alliances which tied the great European powers into two halves dragged each nation unwillingly into a war which spiraled ever larger. This notion, taught to schoolchildren for decades, has now been largely rejected. In The Origins of the First World War, p. 79, James Joll concludes: The Balkan crisis demonstrated that even apparently firm, formal alliances did not guarantee support and co-operation in all circumstances.† This doesn’t mean that the formation of Europe into two sides, achieved by treaty in the late nineteenth / early twentieth centuries, isn’t important, just that the nations were not trapped by them. Indeed, while they divided Europe’s major powers into two halves - The ‘Central Alliance’ of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the Triple Entente of France, Britain and Germany - Italy actually changed sides. In addition, the war was not caused, as some socialists and anti-militarists have suggested, by capitalists, industrialists or arms manufacturers looking to profit from conflict. Most industrialists stood to suffer in a war as their foreign markets were reduced. Studies have shown that industrialists did not pressure governments into declaring war, and governments did not declare war with one eye on the arms industry. Equally, governments did not declare war simply to try and cover up domestic tensions, like the independence of Ireland or the rise of socialists. Context: The Dichotomy of Europe in 1914 Historians recognize that all the major nations involved in the war, on both sides, had large proportions of their population who were not only in favor of going to war, but were agitating for it to happen as a good and necessary thing. In one very important sense, this has to be true: as much as politicians and the military might have wanted the war, they could only fight it with the approval – greatly varying, maybe begrudging, but present - of the millions of soldiers who went off to fight. In the decades before Europe went to war in 1914, the culture of the main powers was split in two. On the one hand, there was a body of thought – the one most often remembered now - that war had been effectively ended by progress, diplomacy, globalization, and economic and scientific development. To these people, who included politicians, large-scale European war had not just been banished, it was impossible. No sane person would risk war and ruin the economic interdependence of the globalizing world. At the same time, each nation’s culture was shot through with strong currents pushing for war: armaments races, belligerent rivalries and a struggle for resources. These arms races were massive and expensive affairs  and were nowhere clearer than the naval struggle between Britain and Germany, where each tried to produce ever more and larger ships. Millions of men went through the military via conscription, producing a substantial portion of the population who had experienced military indoctrination. Nationalism, elitism, racism and other belligerent thoughts were widespread, thanks to greater access to education than before, but an education that was fiercely biased. Violence for political ends was common  and had spread from Russian socialists to British women’s rights campaigners. Before war even began in 1914, the structures of Europe were breaking down and changing. Violence for your country was increasingly justified, artists rebelled and sought new modes of expression, new urban cultures were challenging the existing social order. For many, war was seen as a test, a proving ground, a way to define yourself which promised a masculine identity and an escape from the ‘boredom’ of peace. Europe was essentially primed for people in 1914 to welcome war as a way to recreate their world through destruction. Europe in 1913 was essentially a tense, warmongering place where, despite a current of peace and obliviousness, many felt war was desirable. The Flashpoint for War: the Balkans In the early twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and a combination of established European powers and new nationalist movements were competing to seize parts of the Empire. In 1908 Austria-Hungary took advantage of an uprising in Turkey to seize full control of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region they had been running but which was officially Turkish. Serbia was livid at this, as they wished to control the region, and Russia was also angry. However, with Russia unable to act militarily against Austria – they simply hadn’t recovered enough from the disastrous Russo-Japanese war – they sent a diplomatic mission to the Balkans to unite the new nations against Austria. Italy was next to take advantage and they fought Turkey in 1912, with Italy gaining North African colonies. Turkey had to fight again that year with four small Balkan countries over land there – a direct result of Italy making Turkey look weak and Russia’s diplomacy - and when Europe’s other major powers intervened no one finished satisfied. A further Balkan war erupted in 1913, as Balkan states and Turkey warred over territory again to try and make a better settlement. This ended once more with all partners unhappy, although Serbia had doubled in size. However, the patchwork of new, strongly nationalistic Balkan nations largely considered themselves to be Slavic, and looked to Russia as a protector against nearby empires like Austro-Hungary and Turkey; in turn, some in Russia looked at the Balkans as a natural place for a Russian-dominated Slavic group. The great rival in the region, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was afraid this Balkan nationalism would accelerate the breakdown of its own Empire  and was afraid Russia was going to extend control over the region instead of it. Both were looking for a reason to extend their power in the region, and in 1914 an assassination would give that reason. The Trigger: Assassination In 1914, Europe had been on the brink of war for several years. The trigger was provided on June 28th, 1914, when  Archduke Franz Ferdinand  of Austria-Hungary was visiting Sarajevo in Bosnia on a trip designed to irritate Serbia. A loose supporter of the ‘ Black Hand’, a Serbian nationalist group, was able to assassinate the Archduke after a comedy of errors. Ferdinand wasn’t popular in Austria – he had ‘only’ married a noble, not a royal - but they decided it was the perfect excuse to threaten Serbia. They planned to use an extremely  one-sided  set of demands to provoke a war – Serbia was never meant to actually agree to the demands – and fight to end Serbian independence, thus strengthening the Austrian position in the Balkans. Austria expected the war with Serbia, but in case of war with Russia, they checked with Germany beforehand if it would support them. Germany replied yes, giving Austria a ‘blank check’. The Kaiser and other civilian leaders believed swift action by Austria would seem like the result of emotion and the other Great Powers would stay out, but Austria prevaricated, eventually sending their note too late for it to look like anger. Serbia accepted all but a few clauses of the ultimatum, but not all, and Russia was willing to go to war to defend them. Austria-Hungary had not deterred Russia by involving Germany, and Russia had not deterred Austria-Hungary by risking the Germans: bluffs on both sides were called. Now the balance of power in Germany shifted to the military leaders, who finally had what they had been coveting for several years: Austria-Hungary, which had seemed loathe to support Germany in a war, was about to embark on a war in which Germany could take the initiat ive and turn into the much greater war it desired, while crucially retaining Austrian aid, vital for the  Schlieffen Plan. What followed was the five major nations of Europe – Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, France, Russian and Britain on the other – all pointing to their treaties and alliances in order to enter into the war many in each nation had wanted. The diplomats increasingly found themselves sidelined and unable to stop events as the military took over. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia to see if they could win a war before Russia arrived, and Russia, who pondered just attacking Austria-Hungary,  mobilized  against both them and Germany, knowing this meant Germany would attack France. This let Germany claim victim status and mobilize, but because their plans called for a quick war to knock Russia’s ally France out before Russian troops arrived, they declared war on France, who declared war in response. Britain hesitated and then joined, using Germany’s invasion of Belgium to mobilize the support of the doubters in Britain. Italy, who had an agreement with Germany, refused to do anything. Many of these decisions  were  increasingly taken by the military, who gained ever more control of events, even from national leaders who sometimes got left behind: it took a while for the Tsar to be talked round by pro-war military, and the Kaiser wavered as the military carried on. At one point the Kaiser instructed Austria to cease trying to attack Serbia, but people in Germany’s military and government first ignored him, and then convinced him it was too late for anything but peace. Military ‘advice’ dominated over diplomatic. Many felt helpless, others elated. There were people who tried to prevent the war at this late stage, but many others were infected with jingoism and pushed on. Britain, who had the least explicit obligations, felt a moral duty to defend France, wished to put down German imperialism, and technically had a treaty guaranteeing Belgium’s safety. Thanks to the empires of these key belligerents, and thanks to other nations entering the conflict, the war soon involved much of the globe. Few expected the conflict to last more than a few months, and the public was generally excited. It would last until 1918, and kill millions. Some of those who expected a long war were Moltke, the head of the German army, and Kitchener, a key figure in the British establishment. War Aims: Why each Nation went to War Each nation’s government had slightly different reasons for going, and these are explained below: Germany: A Place in the Sun and Inevitability Many members of the German military and government were convinced that a war with Russia was inevitable given their competing interests in the land between them and the Balkans. But they had also concluded, not without justification, that Russia was militarily much weaker now than it would be should it continue to industrialize and modernize its army. France was also increasing its military capacity – a law making conscription last three years was passed against opposition – and Germany had managed to get stuck in a  naval race  with Britain. To many influential Germans, their nation was surrounded and stuck in an arms race it would lose if allowed to continue. The conclusion was that this inevitable war must be fought sooner, when it could be won, than later. War would also enable Germany to dominate more of Europe and expand the core of the German Empire east and west. But Germany wanted more. The German Empire was relatively young and lacked a key element that the other major empires – Britain, France, Russia – had: colonial land. Britain owned large parts of the world, France owned a lot too, and Russia had expanded deep into Asia. Other less powerful powers owned colonial land, and Germany coveted these extra resources and power. This craving for colonial land became known as them wanting ‘A Place in the Sun’. The German government thought that a victory would allow them to gain some of their rivals’ land. Germany was also determined to keep Austria-Hungary alive as a viable ally to their south  and support them in a war if necessary. Russia: Slavic Land and Government Survival Russia believed that the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were collapsing  and that there would be a reckoning over who would occupy their territory. To many Russia, this reckoning would be largely in the Balkans between a pan-Slavic alliance, ideally dominated by (if not entirely controlled by) Russia, against a pan-German Empire. Many in the Russian court, in the ranks of the military officer class, in the central government, in the press and even among the educated, felt Russia should enter and win this clash. Indeed, Russia was afraid that if they didn’t act in decisive support of the Slavs, as they had failed to do in the Balkan Wars, that Serbia would take the Slavic initiative and destabilize Russia. In addition, Russia had lusted over Constantinople and the Dardanelles for centuries, as half of Russia’s foreign trade traveled through this narrow region controlled by the Ottomans. War and victory would bring greater trade security. Tsar Nicholas II was cautious, and a faction at court advised him against war, believing the nation would implode and revolution would follow. But equally, the Tsar was being advised by people who believed that if Russia didn’t go to war in 1914, it would be a sign of weakness which would lead to a fatal undermining of the imperial government, leading to revolution or invasion. France: Revenge and Re-conquest France felt it had been humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 – 71, in which Paris had been besieged and the French Emperor had been forced to personally surrender  with  his army. France was burning to restore its reputation and, crucially, gain back the rich industrial land of Alsace and Lorraine which Germany had won off her. Indeed, the French plan for war with Germany, Plan XVII, focused on gaining this land above everything else. Britain: Global Leadership Of all the European powers, Britain was arguably the least tied into the treaties which divided Europe into two sides. Indeed, for several years in the late nineteenth century, Britain had consciously kept out of European affairs, preferring to focus on its global empire while keeping one eye on the balance of power on the continent. But Germany had challenged this  because it too wanted a global empire, and it too wanted a dominant navy. Germany and Britain thus began a naval arms race in which politicians, spurred on by the press, competed to build ever stronger navies. The tone was one of violence, and many felt that Germany’s upstart aspirations would have to be forcibly slapped down. Britain was also worried that a Europe dominated by an enlarged Germany, as victory in a major war would bring, would upset the balance of power in the region. Britain also felt a moral obligation to aid France and Russia because, although the treaties they’d all signed didn’t require Britain to fight, it had basically agreed to, and if Britain remained out either her former allies would finish victorious but extremely bitter, or beaten and unable to support Britain. Equally playing on their mind was a belief that they had to be involved to maintain great power status. As soon as war began, Britain also had designs on German colonies. Austria-Hungary:  Long-Coveted  Territory Austria-Hungary was desperate to project more of its crumbling power into the Balkans, where a power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire had allowed nationalist movements to agitate and fight. Austria was particularly angry at Serbia, in which a Pan-Slavic nationalism was growing which Austria feared would lead to either Russian domination in the Balkans, or the total ousting of Austro-Hungarian power. The destruction of Serbia was deemed vital in keeping Austria-Hungary together, as there were near twice as many Serbs within the empire as were in Serbia (over seven million, versus over three million). Revenging the death of  Franz Ferdinand  was low on the list of causes. Turkey: Holy War for Conquered Land Turkey entered into secret negotiations with Germany and declared war on the Entente in October 1914. They wanted to regain land which had been lost in both the Caucuses and Balkans, and dreamed of gaining Egypt and Cyprus from Britain. They claimed to be fighting a holy war to justify this. War Guilt / Who was to Blame? In 1919, in the Treaty of Versailles between the victorious allies and Germany, the latter had to accept a ‘war guilt’ clause which explicitly stated that the war was Germany’s fault. This issue – who was responsible for the war – has been debated by historians and politicians ever since. Over the years trends have come and gone, but the issues seem to have polarised like this: on one side, that Germany with their blank cheque to Austria-Hungary and rapid, two front mobilization was chiefly to blame, while on the other was the presence of a war mentality and colonial hunger among nations who rushed to into to extend their empires, the same mentality which had already caused repeated problems before war finally broke out. The debate has not broken down ethnic lines: Fischer blamed his German ancestors in the sixties, and his thesis has largely become the mainstream view. The Germans were certainly convinced war was needed soon, and the Austro-Hungarians were convinced they had to crush Serbia to survive; both were prepared to start this war. France and Russia were slightly different, in that they weren’t prepared to start the war, but went to lengths to make sure they profited when it occurred, as they thought it would. All five Great Powers were thus prepared to fight a war, all fearing the loss of their Great Power status if they backed down. None of the Great Powers was invaded without a chance to step back. Some historians go further: David Fromkin’s ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ makes a powerful case that the world war can be pinned on Moltke, head of the German General  Staff, a man who knew it would be a terrible, world changing war, but thought it inevitable and started it anyway. But  Joll  makes an interesting point: â€Å"What is more important than the immediate responsibility for the actual outbreak of war is the state of mind that was shared by all belligerents, a state of mind that envisaged the probable imminence of war and its absolute necessity in certain circumstances.† (Joll  and Martel, The Origins of the First World War, p. 131.) The Dates and Order of the Declarations of War

Shackles Overcoming Domestic Abuse, by Malaika Cohen

This essay explores the story of Malaika Cohen and her account of experiencing and overcoming domestic abuse. In her book â€Å"Shackles† Malaika describes various forms of domestic abuse from life as a young child with a controlling Mother and a physically abusive Father which continued into her adult romantic relationships. It will highlight the changes to legislation since Malaika was a victim and how the meaning of domestic abuse has changed over the years. It will also take a look at behaviour patterns of children who grow up in a household with an alcoholic and how this can impact future relationships. Domestic abuse is often diagnosed under the banner of â€Å"Post Traumatic Stress Disorder†, this essay will look how this can have a negative†¦show more content†¦There is evidence of physical, mental, psychological abuse described from an early age. An alcoholic Father, controlling Mother responsible for a series of abortions made against the will of Mala ika. A husband who after physically abusing her, once separated becomes a vicuous stalker inducing a consistent fear. At the central part of the book, a man walks into Malaikas life, a charming man with an accent, a man who seemed foreign to her in many ways, he was kind to her, offered a sanctuary away from her tyrannical husband and family, a role model for her two daughters in the true meaning of a â€Å"Father†. It is no surprise to the reader when this knight in shining armour turns out to be too good to be true. Malaikas start in life highlights why children of alcoholics can develop certain patterns of behaviour. Malaikas Father drank and would often leave the house for days, returning to a torrent of verbal abuse from his wife. Malaika would go through her young life seeing her Father be violent and abusive. The protection needed from her Mother wasnt available and like many children in homes where there are alcohol problems, Malaika had to learn to avoid showing any feelings or raising her Fathers temper. David Stafford (1992) gives an interesting account of these behaviours developed in his book â€Å"Children of Alcoholics† describing how an unpredictable environment can have lasting effects on the child â€Å"Unfortunately, in alcoholic households the protection and

Wonder Drug Free Essays

Wonder Drug Most people know that Penicillin is an extremely important drug, but few know just how important and influential it really is. Think about what life would be like today without it. What would be of contemporary medicine today? Would society as a whole succumb to these relentless infinitesimal organisms? What would have been of one’s ancestors if they too like so many before and after incurred a serious infection? This essay shall explore these questions and many like it. We will write a custom essay sample on Wonder Drug or any similar topic only for you Order Now It will explain why penicillin is undoubtedly the best medication of the century, perhaps the best medication ever in existence. Penicillin is produced by a bread mold, known as Penicillium. The discovery of Penicillin sometimes referred to as the â€Å"wonder drug† has been the most important drug to date. It has the ability to kill just about any bacterial infection and at the time of it’s creation there was no other drug or anything like it. To this date it has saved millions of children, women, men and animals. The wonder drug was originally discovered purely by accident by one Alexander Fleming, a Scottish Scientist in the year 1928. Penicillin was later developed further by many different Scientists who were able to use it to create numerous versions of antibiotics to cure a vast range of illnesses. Antibiotics have been used for several years in treatment for a variety of skin disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, strep throat, and respiratory illnesses. Before Penicillin was discovered, if one were to have a serious infection, death was irrefutable. People often would die of the smallest wounds due to bacterial infections. Bacteria mutates quite often, creating antibiotic-resistant organisms. Which makes it become resistant to the drug. Even with this said, there are still only a small amount of bacteria that Penicillin and it’s predecessors can not tackle and over come. One of Penicillin’s most advertised uses was for combating sexually transmitted diseases. There are websites that show old advertisements for penicillin on the side of mailboxes that shamelessly state, â€Å"Penicillin cures gonorrhea in four hours see your doctor today. †   Believe it or not during the late 1940’s researchers from the United States performed experimental studies in Guatemala. They had to because these types of studies were not allowed in the states. So with the cooperation of the Guatemalan government, local prostitutes were used to pass on STD’s to prisoners, insane asylum patients, and Guatemalan soldiers to test the wonder drug’s effectiveness. Out of approximately thirteen hundred infected people, eighty three died. Although at that time it was not possible to establish if the experiments were the actual cause of death. Penicillin made a major difference in the amount of amputees and deaths during World War II. Because of the difficulties of manufacturing large amounts of Penicillin, availability was extremely limited. Imagine what the death toll would have been if Penicillin had not been made readily available? In fact Penicillin was so scarce, that in it’s infancy, medical personnel would collect the urine from patients and filter the drug from the urine and reuse it. This is because Penicillin passes through the body at rapid rate, usually in about three to four hours. So some may wonder what makes Penicillin so significant, and what makes it the most important medical drug that has ever come into existence? A lot would argue perhaps Morphine or even the Smallpox vaccines are better examples for the most valuable drug. And although one who would argue this may have some validity to one’s argument in an overall comparison there is really no comparison. Smallpox was a devastating disease that crippled the world, the survival rate was approximately seventy percent, which left the other thirty percent of it’s victims suffering immensely. One who contracted this disease would develop blisters and a high fever and often feel malaise with head and body aches and sometimes experience violent vomiting. The blisters were excruciatingly painful and there was little to ease the pain and suffering for its victims. The fever was like none other, often so high that it would cause seizures and hallucinations. It was not until the year 1796 that the Smallpox vaccine was created by a scientist named Edward Jenner. Yet as significant of a vaccine this was it does not outweigh the benefits of Penicillin. At the time Smallpox was a great vaccine for the world. After the world wide eradication though, there was no longer a demand for it. The only people who receive the vaccine currently are military personnel and government contractors traveling overseas. Which in a way is better considering the risks of the vaccine. Some of the risks include seizures, an actual mild case of smallpox, risk spreading it to others by being careless with one’s open wounds, plus it only provides ninety five percent immunity for up to five years. Penicillin has a decent amount of competing antibiotic drugs such as Clindamycin, Azithromycin, Doxycyclin. First and foremost these would not be in existence if it wasn’t for the creation of Penicillin to perpetuate the making of these. All of the competitor drugs are just various versions of Penicillin so as one can see there is very little argument that it’s predecessors are only what they are because of Penicillin’s creation. The only difference between all of these is the functionality due to the amino group and the gram spectrum of the bacteria one heals. This basically means that each one of these targets a different part or kind of bacteria, but still uses the same principle of the original drug. This is why as stated above there is no argument when it comes to the importance of the creation of Penicillin. This essay has explored what Penicillin is, why it is so influential, and who has benefited from it. It has been used in an array of situations from anything such as a sexually transmitted diseases to strep throat. There is no discrediting the fact that without Penicillin the world as one knows it would never have come into existence, this is why Penicillin is conclusively the most important medical drug ever in existence. Works Cited â€Å"Drugs. † Questions and Answers for Consumers on Penicillin G Procaine. Food and Drug Administration, 23 May 2003. Web. 11 Mar. 2013. . â€Å"Smallpox Disease Overview. † CDC Smallpox. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30 Dec. 2004. Web. 11 Mar. 2013. . How to cite Wonder Drug, Essay examples

Changes Continuities in Sub Saharan Africa free essay sample

CHART #2: Thematic Organization COMPARISON THEMES (SCRIPTED):1. Politics 2. Social Structure 3. Economics/Interactions TIME PERIODS: 1. 400-600 CE 2. 600-1000 CE 3. 1000-1450 CE THESIS As the political and social structures of Sub-Saharan Africa developed during the years 400 1450 C. E. , hierarchy structures based on kinship were maintained, however self-contained city-states grew into large empires. BEGINNING TIME PERIOD INTERIM TIME PERIOD END TIME PERIOD GLOBAL CONTEXT 1st THEME’S TOPIC SENTENCE Politics During much of the post-classical period, political structures evolved and diversified throughout sub saharan Africa. Describe the theme at the beginning of the period People along the Niger River created a distinctive city-based civilization. They were not encompassed in a larger imperial system. Nor were they like the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia, in which each city had its own centralized political structures, embodied in a monarch and his accompanying bureaucracy. They were â€Å"cities without citadels,† complex urban centers that operated without the coercive authority of a state. Key Changes and/or Continuities in theme from previous period The Bantu speaking peoples began to create distinct societies.They organized themselves without any formal political specialists at all. They made decisions, resolved conflicts, and maintained order by using kinship structures or lineage principles supplemented by age grades, which joined men of a particular generation together across various lineages. Elsewhere, lineage heads who acquired a measure of personal wealth or who proved skillful at meditating between the local spirits and the people might evolve into chiefs with a modest political authority. By 700s, a farming group of people called the Soninke built an empire called Ghana.It gained its wealth by taxing the goods that traders brought through. Ghana’s king had control over the gold supply and kept its prices high. The empire thrived due to the king’s impressive army. Key Changes and/or Continuities in theme from previous period By the 1400s, Africa was a virtual museum of political and cultural diversity, encompassing large empires, such as Songhay; smaller kingdoms, such as Kongo; city-states among the Yoruba, Hausa, and Swahili peoples; village-based societies without states at all, as among the Igbo; and nomadic pastoral peoples, such as the Fulbe.Pastoral peoples stayed independent of established empires several centuries longer than the nomads of Inne r Asia, for not until the late nineteenth century were they incorporated into European colonial states. The experience of the Fulbe, West Africa’s largest pastoral society, provides a useful example of an African herding people with a highly significant role in the fifteenth century and beyond. From their homeland in the western fringe of the Sahara along the upper Senegal River, the Fulbe migrated gradually eastward in the centuries after 1000 CE.They generally lived in small communities among agricultural peoples and paid various grazing fees and taxes for the privilege of pasturing their cattle. Mali, during the 11th century, took over Ghana and built an ever bigger empire that gained its wealth from trade. Make a statement about this topic in another region of the world. In China, political structures transformed in the Sui, Tang, and Mongol dynasties. Analyze the reasons for change or continuity Analyze the reasons for change or continuityFar more numerous than hunters and gatherers were those many people who, though fully agricultural, had avoided incorporation into large empires or civilization and had not developed their own city- or state-based societies. They created societies largely without the oppressive political authority, class inequalities, and seclusion of women that were so common in civilizations. 2nd THEME’S TOPIC SENTENCE Social Structure Despite harsh years of slavery, sub saharan Africa maintained a social hierarchy that was developed through kinship. Describe the theme at the beginning of the periodVillages of cotton weavers, potters, leather workers, and griots grew up around the central towns. Gradually these urban artisan communities became occupational castes, whose members passed their jobs and skills to their children and could only marry within their own group. In other villages, specialization occurred in farming as various ethnic groups focused on fishing, rice cultivation, or some other agricultural pursuit. Key Changes and/or Continuities in theme from previous period Slavery found a way into Africa. Most slaves began as women, working as domestic servants and concubines. Later, male slaves were put to work as slave officials, porters, craftsmen, miners harvesting salt from desert deposits, and especially agricultural laborers producing for the royal granaries on large estates or plantations. Key Changes and/or Continuities in theme from previous period People usually lived in small village-based communities organized by kinship relations. Dealing with the Fulbes- Relations with their farming hosts often were tense because the Fulbe resented their subordination to agricultural peoples, whose way of life they despised.That sense of cultural superiority became even more pronounced as the Fulbe, in the course of their eastward movement, slowly adopted Islam. Some of them in fact dropped out of a pastoral life and settled in towns, where they became highly respected religious leaders. Make a statement about this topic in another region of the world. Analyze the reasons for change or continuity Slavery developed as work in fields grew more laborious. Social hierarchy based on kinship was maintained through these years. Analyze the reasons for change or continuity 3rd THEME’S TOPIC SENTENCE Economics/Interactions Describe the theme at the beginning of the period Several cities emerged as clusters of economically specialized settlements surrounding a larger central town. Accompanying this unique urbanization, and no doubt stimulating it, was a growing network of indigenous West African commerce. The middle Niger flood-plain supported a rich agriculture and had a clay for pottery, but it lacked stone, iron ore, salt, and fuel. This scarcity of resources was the basis for long-distance commerce, which operated by boat along the Niger River and overland by donkey to the north and south.By the 500s C. E. , there is evidence of an even wider commerce and at least indirect contact, from Mauritania in the west to present-day Mali and Burkina-Faso in the east. The introduction of the camel in 300 to 400 C. E. initiated more long-distance trade. Long-distance trade across the Sahara provided both incentive and resources for the construction of new and larger political structures. Key Changes and/or Continuities in theme from previous period Key Changes and/or Continuities in theme from previous periodEuropean and Chinese maritime expeditions touched on Africa during the 15th century, even as Islam continued to find acceptance in northern half of the continent. Europeans sought the wealth of Africa gold, spices, silk, and more. Along the East African coast after 1000 C. E. , dozens of rival city-states linked the African interior with the commerce of the Indian Ocean basin. The kind of society that developed in any particular area depended on a host of local factors, including population density, trading opportunities, and interaction among culturally different peoples.The Swahili city-states were a key aspect to long-distance trade along the east coast of Africa (the Sea Roads). Make a statement about this topic in another region of the world. East Africa contributed raw materials and agricultural products globally. Swahili’s interaction along the Sea Roads connected Africa to Indian Ocean world. Analyze the reasons for change or continuity A series of distinct and specialized economic groups shared authority and voluntarily used the services of one another, while maintaining their own identities through physical separation. Analyze the reasons for change or continuity CONCLUSION