West European Studies

What is the  Age of Exploration  Who were the main countries involved in this race to build an empire What were their motives What kind of impact did exploration have on the New World and its inhabitants What inventions made exploration and sailing around the world possible How did the Age of Exploration impact Africa

The Age of Exploration was the time when the leading countries of Europe started conducting expeditions that enabled them discover lands beyond their borders, particularly lands in Africa and the New World (North and South America) which they would explore and later on colonize.  Spain and Portugal were the first two nations to embark on this venture and subsequently followed by England, France and Holland later on.  Their motives stemmed from the Three Gs  Glory, Gold and God.   To be able to acquire more lands than their rival would give them more prestige and stamp their class as a superior nation (Glory).  Conquering new lands would bring more riches to fill their coffers and make them wealthier than ever, especially with the lucrative spice trade which the Europeans wanted to covet as spices were considered far more precious than gold because of its rarity in Europe (Gold).  This was also an opportunity for them to Christianize the natives and spread the faith (God) .  After Portugal led the way, the rest of the leading European nations that could afford it joined in and created a competition for exploration and colonization (Duiker and Spielvogel, 287, 293-298).

If there was one impact it made, it led to the creation of a  new world system.   This was characterized by the gradual emergence of capitalism through a global trade network rising as mercantilism was gradually giving way to this new system.  Besides being settlements for people from Europe, these colonies served a purpose economically, providing natural resources for the colonizers to make a profit.  It also marked the end of the isolation of the western hemisphere as colonizers and settlers started coming in to add to the local population.  As for the inhabitants, they would be exposed to a culture that was alien to them as these new settlers tried to instill their culture upon them on the pretext of  civilizing  them.  In the process, these people would lose their identity as they were made to adapt to the ways of their colonizers.  This was particularly true in the colonies of the Spanish and Portuguese.  In the case of Africa, it was similar as the region is also rich in natural resources, particularly gold and in addition to this, the slave trade became very lucrative here as natives were abducted and sold at centers of trade and eventually imported to the western hemispheres.  Slavery used to be between Africa and the Middle East and the arrival of the Europeans, particularly the Portuguese, altered the direction of the slave trade to serve the interests of the Europeans (Duiker and Spielvogel, 286, 299-301).

As far as technology was concerned, the creation of sailing ships that were capable of sailing the high seas.  These ships replaced the galley-driven ones that used to ply the Mediterranean and were proven to be more faster and maneuverable.  In addition to the ships, special maps called portolani proved to be very reliable as well as other technologies that were imported from the orient such as the compass and the astrolabe also proved useful in expeditions (Duiker and Spielvogel, 293).

It is the Enlightenment era. You have had the ability to hear both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes discuss their unique and novel views of government. In your own words explain to me the arguments held by each man and what made them so new and innovative. Tell me if possible, what was the reasoning behind each of their works.

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Lockes ideas served as the foundation for modern democratic ideas during this era.  John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both agreed that a ruler of some sort appeared absolutely necessary for a country to thrive and flourish. Without a leader, the country would fall away into nothing, wracked by instability or chaos, if not anarchy.  In the political sense, the two philosophers agreed only on this subject. However, they each believed that a different type of power should reside as supreme. In his work,  Leviathan,  Hobbes emphasized the need of a ruler to regulate the lives of the people.  While he acknowledged that people are endowed with natural rights, they have the tendency to be a slave to it and follow it and it may cause conflict or chaos.  It is therefore necessary that society needs to have a ruler to regulate these rights and ensure order and stability.  This is Hobbes  Leviathan.  Hobbes thought that only one man, a king, should have the right to govern the people. One ruler should govern the people who in turn must be willing to conform to the norms of society by willingly curbing some of these rights as part of ensuring order.  This was Hobbes version of the social contract.  While Hobbes was an avowed royalist, he believed that any democratic society could still apply this principle (Duiker and Spielvogel, 380-383).

Locke took Hobbes social contract concept a step further felt that the people should somewhat administer their government. Unlike Hobbes, who believed the people have to give up some of their rights, he believed that the people should be involved in everything the government decided, those governing them. In his idea of the social contract, rulers have to govern wisely and judiciously and so as long as they do this, the citizens will comply with the laws and decrees.  However, if the government did not live up to its part of the social contract, the people had the right to change the government because this government is no longer considered legitimate and has lost the moral authority to govern.  This was how Locke came up with his own version of the social contract which is akin to the kind of arrangement found in democratic countries today (Duiker and Spielvogel, 380-383).  The bottom line here is that while Hobbes believed that even freedom-loving people still need a government to administer them since they are members of a society and the  contract  states they have to give up some rights.  Locke took a different view stating both rulers and the governed should forge an agreement, through a constitution to define their relationship.  So as long as both parties comply with this, everything will be orderly in society.