Need for exam!! How did discoveries in the New World affect European attitudes towards traditional authority?
478081
The affects were comparable to you not going to class and/or not paying attention, which has forced you to go online to find answers to an exam. cheater.
171792
As trade between Native Americans and European settlers grew and as the Indians received European goods, traditional hunting and trading practices disappeared. Tribes began to compete with each other over trade with the Europeans.  \n\nFirst, as skilled hunters and suppliers of pelts, the Indians were sought after as trading partners and were exposed to white culture. \n\nIn exchange for their goods, the Indians received European products, both practical, such as iron tools and utensils, and decorative, such as bright-colored cloth and beads. \n\nThe Indians also received firearms and liquor, both of which had an enormous impact on Indian lifeways. \n\nA second and devastating effect from trade with whites was the outbreak of European diseases among the Indian population. \n\nA third effect was the long-term ecological disruption of the food chain by the depletion of fur-bearing mammals. \n\nAnd finally, the fur trade had another long-term impact in the Indians by bringing whites onto their lands. \n\nAfter the white traders, trappers, and hunters came the trading and military posts, and after the posts came the settlers.  Resulting in the loss of Native American lands.\n\nMost of what I could find was on the "fur trade", but you can also check the site below it contains more indepth information.  Hope this helps.  Good luck.
985049
You might learn a lot from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization\nI think the borders were more a part of the monarchy's decision to allow for different parties to control different areas as they gradually made their way on to the continent
272155
When I teach this subject my answer is always three fold.  FIRST-ancient peoples crossed over the land bridge between Asia and North America.  \n\nSECOND-Leif Erikson was the first known European to discover America\n\nTHRID- Columbus "rediscovered" America at a time when the knowledge caught hold and became widely known. \n\nMy personal belief is that many people discovered it independantly of others and thus were the true "first discoverer" at least in their own minds eye (and tribes or ships).
792868
that's a unique question... but Man started off in Africa, but migrated to the rest of the Earth.  When they got to Europe, the climate and environment changed the appearance of the Original man.   Why would you even want to know "how long did it take for people to change" ??  how would that help you?  why don't you ask why the Europeans would historically think they are better than Asians, Native Americans, and Africans in the world?  Or why any race would think they are superior and almost kill off a race and take --to that same land,--  another race they feel superior to?  Or ask why some white people hate the fact that their ancestors are from the continent they despise so much. damn, I got way off subject..
82308
these sites may help:\nhttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502192_2/Colonial_America.html\n\nhttp://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8659
643760
Here's the rub....People originally moved to the new world so they could worship God in their own way. We based all of our hopes and early government on this main principle...now they are trying to take religion out of the government that was created by those seeking freedom of religion. Anyone else have a problem with this?
156233
I would recommend the excellent book The World's Banker : A Story of Failed States, Financial Crises, and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.  Or Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond.  Or perhaps "The open veins of Latin America", by Eduard Galeano.\n\nThe arguments are very complex and the analysis of history and culture very interesting, but I will boil it down and make it very simple.\n\nSuccessfull cultures in today's world are almost entirely based on the values of a particular culture (yes there are other factors, but bear with me).  Countries that approach economics from an exploitationist perspective (see Spain in the 16th century in the new world) or many countries today where a few people control the mineral and resource wealth of a country fail repeatedly until eventually the values of the people change.  \n\nCountries that have promoted mercantilism, trade and commerce generally prosper, because in order to create a climate in which commerce can flourish, soceity has to value the traits that are conducive to commerce (transparency, rule of law, meritocracy, etc).  A smart businessman hires the best people he can to do the job, not necessarily his family members (as is the norm in some countries).  \n\nSo, how is it that countries that have relatively few natural resources are rich and powerful (Great Britain, Japan for instance)?  They are mercantilists to one extent or another.  Look at the Netherlands. Almost no natural resources, and only 14 million people.  However, they own many major businesses that operate in the US and have influence out of proportion to their size.  Why?  they figured it out early and got with the program.
182454
I am a Canadian living in the US and have done substitute teaching here.  I have found through my work and my wife's statements of what she learned, that there is very little world history taught through basic education here.  They do learn a bit about Canada and Mexico, but it seems, that if it doesn't relate directly to the US, it isn't that important.
348742
Most likely no.  On both continental groups Eurasia/Afica nad the Americas there were many similarities in technology and scientific process.  This jsut shows that if we as humans really need (or want) something, that we will find a way to get it.  Every great ancient culture was great because they tackled the problems that everyone needed solved.  Writing happened on both continental groups becaus a need to archive history in a condensed form, the same way as the compess, boat and agriculture developed, out of a universla need.
12476
First, the mayan people still exist and continue to live in the Yucatan, Guatemala, etc.  While JRS is correct that european contact wiped out many native peoples, the classic mayan civilzation was already well into decline before the first contact with european settlers.  While the culture may have rebounded without Friar Diego de Landa, et. al. (see: Yucatan Before and After the Conquest by Diego de Landa; Devastation of The Indes by de las Casas -- both written in the 1500s), that is far from certain (and seems unlikely to me).\n\nInterestingly, some of the cultural practices continue to exist as mixed with Catholicism.  And, the cult of the talking cross stuff went into the 1920s if I recall.  \n\nEvoluzione33's answer captures the current thinking on the decline of that culture.  During the classic period, population density was almost certainly greater than it is now.  Resources were at the limit (esecially fertile land and water).  Slash and burn agriculture to plant corn may have also had an impact (as it does now).  Finally, there is some very recent evidence that inter city conflicts may have become increasing violent and destabilizing.  Combined with the drought (see The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death by Richardson Gill), it all appears to have been too much.\n\nFinally:  I also thought dry wood burned hotter than green wood but that green wood burned smokier?
1078013
His noble heart\nThe influences of the priestes from the University of Salamanca where he was studying for his law degree. The Dominicans were against the social injustices against the Indians.\nThe fact that he witnessed the massacre of Native People in Cuba\nThe lack of support from the King of Spain towards more humanitarian approach to the New World's natives
208973
Some curriculums teach that Africa was the\nprimary influence in the knowledge that we\nhave today.  Certainly Egypt had an impact\non civilization, but the Greeks developed an\namazing society, some of which was lost in\nthe rise of the Roman empire and later during\nthe dark ages.  The Renaissance or rediscovering\ncentered around the Greek civilizatin instead of\nEgypt.  Much of Africa has always consisted mostly of\nscattered peoples with little widespread influence.
1168160
yes, definitely. The New World did need to be discovered.  It was fine on its own.
740343
French colonization of North America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_the_Americas and Dutch colonization of North America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#North_America\n\nGood Luck!!!
217928
I should say not the European nations but European monopolists rushed to seize colonies in Africa and Asia.The countries on these continents weren't developped , so they easily fell under the european leading capitalist countries' rule.(sorry i'm not English speaker and don't know if you understand my words propely).There was a "race" for capturing as more colonies as they could.The colonies were the cheapest labour and the cheapest goods for Europeans.So it helped them in growing their capital a lot.The rush for the colonies began in th 17th c. and the most colonies at first owned Spain and Portugal, this process began with the first discoveries.
1106948
1630 to 1865, that's a long time, I guess the answer is Yes.\nTry:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_century\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century\n\nalso, try to get the impact of renaissance along the 17th century up to the 19th century. i can tell you that in south east asia, it played a huge impact especially by christianity. islam made a big difference during the 10th century up to the 16th century and hiduism and buddhism were before that. the understanding of god's role also influenced the politics of the countries in those region. all the best!