Chip Kendrick

Final Exam : G.P.

	The chicken and egg metaphor, used to describe situations in which cause and 
effect are mixed, has been around since history began.  In almost all situations where this 
metaphor applies, the interaction between cause and effect is cyclical.  One such cyclical 
pattern in history is found in the interaction of the west and its colonies.  The 
modernization of Western Europe, both economic and political, depended upon and was 
a cause of 'aborted modernization' and the cultural destruction of the non-Western world.
	As the era of western expansionism began, the west started out with a lead.  
Western Europe had its political head start because only the most stable known forms of 
government could survive the turmoil that characterized Western Europe before its 
period of expansion.  Western Europe had been the stage of many wars throughout the 
period before its sudden domination, and so the military technology in Western Europe 
was superior to that found in Asia, and of course to that found in Africa and the 
Americas.  
These twin leads made the Europeans capable of assimilating colonies where other 
nations were short on weapons technology and political stability.
	As the takeover of the non-European world began, the modernization of Europe 
was at a take-off point.  Advances in medicine had brought a population boom, which led 
not only to emigration but to the necessary reorganization of people into cites and 
factories instead of farms and household units.  Yet the modernization of Europe was not 
self-powered at this point.  It needed an economic stimulus, and the form of it was the 
beginning of the textile industry.
	As soon as England had conquered India, merchants began importing cotton.  
This allowed the textile industry to begin in earnest.  The popularity of the new cotton 
clothing and the availability and cheapness of the raw material from India made the 
technology of the loom and the reorganization into a factory economy necessary.  In this 
way, the beginning of the aborted modernization of India fueled the modernization of 
England.  
	Yet as the textile industry in cotton grew, the profits of the powerful wool 
merchants shrank.  Cotton clothing was cheaper, more comfortable and more durable.  
However, the wool merchants who had previously been so wealthy and powerful still had 
a large influence on England's political system.  In 1700, they forced the passing of a law 
that prevented the cotton industry from shipping finished cloth into England, but not 
barring the import of raw materials.  What little finished cloth being made in India could 
no longer be brought into England.  The hope that India had of riding with England into 
the modern period was destroyed along with India's culture.  With the merchants forcing 
everyone in India to produce raw cotton, the caste system fell apart and India's 
modernization was completely aborted.  In addition, the aborted modernization of India 
increased the rate England's modernization ( since all actual cloth making was now done 
in England ).  Thus a law brought about by England's modernization completed India's 
aborted modernization, and further, India's aborted modernization increased the rate of 
modernization in England.
	This event set the stage.  The economic policy of using the colony to benefit the 
mother country was termed mercantilism, and spread as a common economic policy 
throughout Europe and the West.  England, France and Spain used their African colonies 
to produce iron for railroads, hardware and firearms.  Culture was destroyed as people in 
the more scientifically primitive nations were forced to labor to produce raw materials.
	Europe's scientific modernization had started with the textile industry.  The need 
for power to run textile machines led to the invention of the steam engine, which led to 
the railroad and to the mining of fossil fuels, which in turn led to a new stage of scientific 
and economic modernization.
	The scientific modernization in turn led to better medicine and more efficient 
food distribution, which led to a gigantic population boom.  The population boom led to 
yet another era of imperialism, now termed new imperialism, which was the cause of a 
great deal more cultural destruction in the non-European world.  New imperialism also 
brought about the takeover of more land for colonies, and aborted modernization 
continued in these new territories.  With their economies destroyed by Europe and their 
people overrun, the colonial nations' culture was wiped out and disappeared, to later re-
emerge in pockets that colonists had not reached.
	Thus we have the cycle.  Europe started ahead, colonized and adopted 
mercantilism.  Mercantilism caused aborted modernization and cultural destruction, and 
the benefits of aborted modernization came back to England as an increased rate of 
modernization.  Finally, the new population boom caused by Europe's modernization 
caused an era of emigration which wiped out even more culture and started the aborted 
modernization of new colonial territory.



USGP

	In looking for the similarities and differences between nations, one must 
remember that there are certain things that make a nation a nation, and pointing out these 
as similarities is essentially attempting to prove that two nations are similar because they 
are both nations.  Among these basic similarities, we must include the existence of some 
sort of government, the control of some area of land, the existence of an army, the 
occasional revolution, and many other things.  Thus when arguing whether a nation is 
closer to the exception or to the rule, we should only discuss the ways in which nations 
have diversified.  The theory of American Exceptionalism holds that America is unusual 
in the world.  This is true: America is sufficiently different in the ways that nations can 
differ to be called unusual.
	From its founding, America has been made up of the 'exceptions'.  The first 
colonists were people whose belief or way of life differed sufficiently from the European 
norm that they could not and would not fit in.  America was founded by pilgrims and 
Quakers, trying to build a 'city on a hill' in a new land.  The fundamental concept of 
America from the very beginning was exceptionalism.
	Socially, America is and was a 'melting pot'.  Immigration from all parts of the 
world gave America a social mix not present in most other nations.  Borders in Europe 
were based on the force of nationalism.  Nations tended to have a single race that was 
very dominant, and often a religion that was either required or so prevalent as to be, 
essentially, required.  In America, no particular European race remained dominant and 
races other than European entered the mix as well.  Clearly no religion could have been 
dominant since America was founded by religious leaders from controversial sects.  The 
only other places in the world where such a mix was present were the colonies, and while 
the nations that formed themselves out of these colonies were mixed in race, they tended 
to be mixed between only two races that remained on the whole distinct up until at least 
1850.  In America, the open arms policy led to immigration beyond the purpose of 
colonization, and the racial and religious mix that resulted was exceptional.
	Politically, America has a unique setup.  The American political system involves 
both state and federal governments, a setup unique in the world.  This system allows 
state-level problems to be dealt with within the state and reserves the federal government 
for multi-state issues.  This government is at the very least unusual among nations, and 
viewed from certain angles, unique.
	Economically, nations cannot really differ very much.  Yet as far as economies 
can differ, America does.  The laissez - faire style of economy is as different as an 
economy can be from the many other styles of economy that existed at this time - for 
instance the English mercantilist economy.  The American economy, founded more on a 
concept than developed from experience, is unusual.
	The biggest difference between America and the other nations of the world was 
land.  In Europe, for instance, where there is very little land compared to the population, 
land is power.  The aristocracy are the aristocracy because they have a large amount of 
inherited land.  In such a situation, people are stuck in their positions, and it is very hard 
for power to redistribute itself.  In America, land was available and often free for the 
taking.  People were not held to their inherited position because they could wander 
elsewhere and start over without having to worry about having land.  In addition, 
inheriting a large amount of land was no guarantee of power, so that the richest people 
who held the most land were really not much better off.  This was a social, political and 
economical difference.  Socially, it was the basis for an attitude of being able to start 
over at any time.  Politically, anyone could come into power.  Land was no longer 
equated with wealth which was no longer equated with power.  Economically, anyone 
could claw his way to the top, and no one was ever stuck from the start ( except slaves ).  
The availability of land was a unique situation for America, which changed attitudes, 
social, political and economic structure.
	Thus America is unusual socially in its racial and religious mix, politically in its 
state and federal government mix, economically because of  the laissez - faire style of 
economy.  It was also different socially, politically and economically because of the 
availability of land and the lack of an aristocracy.


US Essay C

	The constitution of the United States attempted to solve both the problem of 
European government systems and to correct the semi-sovereign, weakly tied states the 
Articles of Confederation established.  It also had to deal with an unknowable future.  In 
all ways, the constitution efficiently and intelligently dealt with these problems.
	First of all the Constitution needed to allocate the basic powers of government: 
the ability to tax and to create and maintain an army.  This it does, curing the main defect 
of the Articles of Confederation.  In addition, by creating both state and federal 
governments, the constitution allowed the states some separate power, which not only 
allowed the very different states to stay different, but was a check against the power of 
the federal government.  This was first of many checks and balances created in the 
Constitution.
	The executive and legislative branches of the new government allowed the United 
States to mix the power of the people ( House ) with the power of the states ( Senate ) 
and the power of a single ruler ( President ).  This gave the States the full benefit of each 
style of rule without allowing any one type of power to show its weakness.  The single 
ruler cannot become the tyrant, the state representatives cannot become the detached 
aristocracy, and the rule of the people cannot unjustly treat the minority.  These 
problems, which had been present for centuries in Europe, were eradicated by 
combination and balance.
	Some other checks and balances needed to be created : the power to create law is 
split between the legislative and executive branch, but is checked by the judicial branch, 
which can interpret the Constitution directly to override law.  The powers of taxation and 
of the army are given to both the executive and the legislative branch.  
	Finally the Constitution prepared for the future in the only realistic way.  There is 
no way the Constitution could have been written that would have prepared the nation for 
the future without being either extremely vague, or allowing for its own change.  By 
allowing for its own change, the Constitution becomes a document which is impossible 
to outdate, and becomes perfect in that it can never be imperfect if it is constantly ready 
to alter its own failings.  
	Thus, the Constitution solved both the failing of the Articles of Confederation and 
of the previous European styles of government, while making itself completely ready for 
the future because of its complete adaptability.

US Essay B

	America's approaches to the War of 1812 and to the War with Mexico were 
totally different.  The policy and approach used in the War of 1812 was essentially 
Washington's advice about not having entangling alliances, while the approach to the 
War with Mexico was a bluff and compromise mode which led to a necessary war, fueled 
by the attitude of the age of expansionism.
	When the English went to war with the French in 1812, America wanted to be 
uninvolved.  Our policy was ill-conceived and naive.  We claimed we were simply going 
to trade with both sides equally and would act as if there was no war going on.  Even 
when English and French ships began attacking our ships, even when the French enacted 
the ridiculous XYZ affair, we stuck to our policy and would not take a side.  As it turned 
out this policy was not going to work in and of itself, and we adopted at last the more 
cunning approach: by claiming we would not trade with anyone if we did not get neutral 
rights, we forced both countries to trade peacefully.  Our policy evolved from a naive 
expectancy that warring nations would 'play fair' to a cunning and effective bluff.
	We carried this strategy into the War with Mexico.  We bluffed and compromised 
to take a large chunk of the Oregon territory and continued throughout the age of 
expansionism to use this technique.  Finally when Mexico called our bluff, we were 
forced into a war we really didn't mind fighting, as it gave us a great deal of land we 
could have compromised for.  
	The naiveté evolved into a tendency to bluff, and the overuse of bluffing led to a 
war.  Yet all in all the bluffing worked, and territory was acquired.  If the US is to be 
considered to have needed or badly wanted Mexico's land, then even the result of war for 
the land, since it turned out necessary, is satisfactory is this view.
	Thus, the approach used in the war of 1812 was one of expecting equal treatment 
from two warring nations.  The lesson learned from this led to a new policy of bluffing 
which led to an acceptable war with Mexico.