I will be arguing that the achievement of the Attlee Government were remarkable. The sources which I’ll be using show the impact that the Attlee Government had on Britain. From my own knowledge and also the sources, I can show that the achievements of Attlee Government were remarkable as it helped the people of Britain live much better lives. On the contrary it can also show that the achievements weren’t remarkable as it had created many problems for the country. Source 4 is suggesting that since the Attlee government had come into power sorted out many problems in Britain.
Ancient interpretations are negative and criticise his religious reforms. Modern interpretations are more subjective, though they are still quite negative. Like any ruler, Akhenaten had aspects of his reign he did well, and other aspects that were not done so well. Many of Akhenaten's criticisms are based on his massive religious reforms. One aspect of his reign that is often seen in a positive light is the artistic reform that occurred in the Amarna period.
DBQ 17 British imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in negative and positive effects on India and Britain itself. The British were positively affected by imperialism, while India was both positively and negatively affected by the imperialism. Indian natives had no say in government, and were pretty much ruled over, but were also positively affected, like adopting a parliamentary system of government. Britain was positively affected and gained mass amounts of natural resources and processed them, also known as mercantilism. There were many positive affects to Imperialism in India.
When the colonial efforts began, Spain was rather poor compared to other European countries. The New World gave the Spanish an opportunity to not only extend their empire, but also extend their wealth and religious beliefs. According to Antoinette Lee, who wrote an article discussing Spanish colonization titled “Spanish Missions,” their colonial efforts were quite successful and backed by the belief in the spread of the Christian faith despite the brutality of the efforts. “News of the oppression of native populations spread,” he wrote, “leading to criticism of both the atrocities of the Spanish rule as well as the idea itself.” He continued, “However, the involvement of the religious orders deflected this
Also holding on to this great superpower status was largely to do with the fact that Britain still had an Empire, inevitably making them feel more superior to the other European countries, this was a lack of realism as after both Suez Crisis and the formation of the EEC Britain began to understand that they were missing out. The scale at which Britain had failed was only determined when the EEC boomed, making the fact that were previously invited a harder pill to swallow. Joining became the main priority for Britain. Now that the lack of realism had dawned on Britain, its desperation grew as the EEC became more and more influential showing that the previously thought unbeneficial agreement was now in Britain’s interests, as most of the popular trade routes where now run by the EEC. The EEC gave Britain the cold shoulder 3 times regarding entry as they believed Britain to be a liability
On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not. I agree with the view that the public got swept away with the ideas of imperialism because everyone else seemed to be believing in it, but I also think that this generalisation is fairly unreliable because it shouldn’t be applied to the whole population, because there must have been some people who were against it, or saw through the press and propaganda; how they were trying desperately hard to influence people’s opinions. Firstly, Source 4 suggests that the capital of England, London, were overjoyed at the news of the relief of Mafeking, supporting the view in question that the public were enthusiastic about the Empire’s advances: “celebrated”, and words such as “fireworks” and “brass bands” give connotations of happiness and festivity. However, this Source also implies that the root of people’s merriment (imperialism) was spread and emphasised by the “new halfpenny press”. From my own knowledge, I know that there were numerous newspapers that were ‘pro-war, such as The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Morning Post and their
On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not. I agree with the view that the public got swept away with the ideas of imperialism because everyone else seemed to be believing in it, but I also think that this generalisation is fairly unreliable because it shouldn’t be applied to the whole population, because there must have been some people who were against it, or saw through the press and propaganda; how they were trying desperately hard to influence people’s opinions. Firstly, Source 4 suggests that the capital of England, London, were overjoyed at the news of the relief of Mafeking, supporting the view in question that the public were enthusiastic about the Empire’s advances: “celebrated”, and words such as “fireworks” and “brass bands” give connotations of happiness and festivity. However, this Source also implies that the root of people’s merriment (imperialism) was spread and emphasised by the “new halfpenny press”. From my own knowledge, I know that there were numerous newspapers that were ‘pro-war, such as The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Morning Post and their
Roman and Han Attitudes Towards Technology The Roman Empire and The Han Dynasty both had positive views on technology. (Doc. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8) However there were also people who were against it (Doc. 2, 5, and 7). Although this is true, China was much more open and positive towards technological advancements, while Rome was more of a class-divided society, which in turn causes the general opinion on technology and advancements to be low.
The movement was based around the six-point charter, which though was classed by many liberals as fair and democratic it can be argued that it was too radical for the time period 1836-58 thus being the reason as why Chartism failed. However in Source 6 Robert Ellis argues that though Chartism failed to achieve its primary aims, it united the working-class and produced the ability to of the working-class to “be organised on an unprecedented scale in support of a political programme. Source 6 further expresses how Chartism succeeded with producing “improvements in literacy and communication” strengthening the position of the working class people. Political dissatisfaction had built up amongst the working and middle class in Britain during the industrial revolution in the 19th Century. As a result of lack of political equality and social justice, in June 1840 the National Chartist Association was formed and the first stage of Chartism commenced.
Therefore, imperialism can be positive or negative, depending on where you are from and your beliefs. Imperialism can help both nations, but it will be helping the stronger nation more than it helps the weaker nation. So while it helps the stronger nation, it can hinder the lives of the people of the weaker nation. I believe that although it may have a few positive affects, imperialism is still more negative. Imperialism is still more negative.