Compare And Contrast Asia And Americans

Illnesses such as smallpox killed the majority of Native American populations significantly weakening the Naive Americans allowing for Europeans to more easily conquer them. The transfer of crops from the Americas to Europe allowed for a more population growth and shaped their cuisine to this day. Potatoes and native to the Americas yet they are and were a staple of European diets, most notably the Irish. European discovery of resources in the Americas led to millions of African slaves being shipped to the Americas to work in mines or plantations. This widespread slave trade has influences race relations to this day.

Culture wasn’t the only thing that the Europeans brought over to the Americas. Along with their customs and rules, came the diseases that the Native American’s have never been exposed to. The Europeans brought many communicable diseases such as small pox and measles which were transmitted to the Native Americans through trade goods or someone infected with them. This quickly annihilated most of the Native American population.

Europeans were in a much closer proximity to the Americas than they were to asian countries. European societal groups, which included the competing merchants, impoverished nobles, monarchs, and commoners, Christian missionaries, and minorities different yet very strong motivations for having participation in empire building. European trading companies enabled the mobilization of both material resources like wood and crops as well as humans. The Disease in the Americas that had been brought by spanish conquerors made the natives weak and unable to stop the European invasion

Europeans brought diseases to the Americas, such as smallpox and measles. The original descendants did not bring the diseases because they traveled through the cold and they had no domesticated animals. Many of these diseases were caused by domesticated animals. At

We as a world together have been through a lot of changes and made a lot of advances over the past couple of centuries. Many have argued about the outcome of the European expansion on the Americas. Some people feel that the Europeans had both a positive and negative impact on the expansion; however, the negative impact gave a devastating result, which would continue to change history for almost four hundred years. The Europeans were manipulative towards to indigenous people of the Americas. They exploited them, using them as their personal slaves. Most importantly, they silently murdered the Natives by introducing them to diseases such as the measles and smallpox. Consequently, a small pox epidemic was caused, which resulted in the

Before 1492, America was isolated from the Europe and Asia, as well as all the advances that came in those places. Asia controlled most trade because they had the most export, and therefore, had the most power. Europe at this time had an interest in spices and drug trade, which led to exploration to overseas places to find more goods.

Europeans explored and settled in the Americas all throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, and were generally successful. Although there were a number of factors that contributed to European successes in the New World, biological exchange was foremost. Biological exchange was the most significant force behind Europeans’ success in the Americas because it helped Europeans to wipe out Native American peoples, both physically and culturally, and to introduce European practices and resources that would help Europeans to flourish in the New World.

The advent of Western imperialism during the early 18th century in large parts of Asia was preceded by centuries of Asian economic dominance over the known world. Countries such as China and India were considered the economic powerhouses of the world, with many foreign traders coveting to trade with them. However, not all regions of Asia were as economically developed as these two; Korea, for the most part of the pre-modern period, suffered from little commercialism and poor crop yields. The question arises: What foundations of pre-modern Asia were set up for later modernity? The answer can be given as thus: resource-rich Asian countries were able to effectively trade with their European counterparts. This would eventually lead to European

It was geographical advantages that allowed Europeans to gain the guns, germs, and steel, that enabled them to be a world power.

Yali’s question asks why Eurasian societies have, throughout the course of history, acquired greater wealth than the vast majority of Native American, African, and Aboriginal Australian societies. It encompasses the question of why these Eurasian societies were the ones to develop the necessary skills and technologies to conquer most or all of the groups living on the respective other continents, as opposed to the other way around. It compares the different rates of development between contrasting continents, and asks why some continents – particularly Europe and Asia – developed faster than others (15).

Japan is often described as a ‘late comer’ to modernity where the industrial revolution started in Britain and spread across the world, however, Sino and Shinto centrism would challenge this concept with Asian civilisation being far more ancient than its European counterparts. Indeed, some scholars have claimed that the only advantage Europeans had was in military technology and that only this was enough to become dominant in the Asian sphere – examples of imperial gunboat diplomacy and historic Asian economic superiority until the opium wars are often cited as good examples of western dominance being far from inherent in

The world of 1851 differed on a significant scale from that of 1500 for both Asia and Europe. Until the 1800s, Asia was considered the centre of the world in many aspects such as trade, innovation, wealth, manufacturing and territorial influence and expansion. In contrast, Europe was disunited and divided at the core of its superpowers due to massive political reforms and religious warfare. Yet, and from these reforms, the continent was well within a new age of discovery and improvements. It was undoubtedly the success of this era and its breakthroughs (technology, pace, unification…) that allowed the European powers to surpass their Asian contenders and reach unchallenged dominance around the 1800s.

Before the discovery of the Americas, Europe was a non-factor in regards to the rest of the world. According to Andre Gunder Frank, Europe was “backwards and far behind the rest of the world”. In the 1400s Asians had superior naval capacity during the Ming voyages, and had been dominating a world economic system that had been fully functioning without the participation of Europe. Frank argues that the “Asians were dominant” in every facet. From production, competitiveness, to trade, Asians dominated the global economy, and was amongst the most dominant global power in the world. Asians also had stunning technology and institutions that were far superior to those in Europe. Frank uses statistics such as per capita income, and population. The data further proves that Europe was backwards and a non-global factor in these times. Another major key that hindered Europe was the

In the 1960s, people of Papua New Guinea were still using stone tools, but the people of North America were flying to other planets and communicating via telephone. Why is it that in the same year these two places had such a different technological advancement. The answer lies in geographic luck. Europe's geography gave it the best climate for Agriculture and the ability to domesticate animals because of that they gained immunity to deadly diseases. Europeans had the right material for creating steel giving them stronger weapons and a better chance at conquering other cultures. This upbringing the world’s inequality.

In his book The Great Divergence, Ken Pomeranz gives some insight to why there was substantial industrial growth in Northwest Europe, instead of in similarly advanced areas of East Asia. He displays how close the two worlds, Europe and China, were through their high life expectancies, their consumption of production, their markets, and their shortages of land. Ken Pomeranz chapter by chapter, debunks the known ideas of why Europe was on top and explains that the Great Divergence (when England jumped ahead of the other markets) was caused by the access to coal and the other natural resources in the New World.