Power to the Citizens

Currently I am learning about Absolutists and Enlightened rulers. Our class always has an essential question we are trying to answer for each lesson. In this lesson we were trying to decide if Enlightened Absolute monarchs were more enlightened or more absolute. In order to answer this question our teacher gave us notes that we copied into our Evernote and discussed. Then we individually read a page in our textbooks that explained what Frederick the Great, Catherine the great, and Joseph II did as monarchs. With this information from the textbook we made a Venn diagram. In one circle we put actions that represented the Absolutists acts that the ruler did and then in the second circle we put Enlightened acts that the ruler did. Then where they intersected we put things that the ruler did that could be considered absolutist and enlightened. After we completed the Venn diagram we chose one of the ruler to focus on and formed a propaganda poster. This poster is used to persuade people to join the ruler by using only good things that they did, so I chose Joseph II and used one of his enlightened acts because the absolutists acts are all negative. Through this lesson we were able to form a better understanding of how the monarchs were persuaded by Absolutists and Enlightened ideas.

An Enlightened monarch is defined as someone who has or shows a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook. Monarch started to rule as enlightened in the 1600s because people were getting fed up with the lavish lifestyles and the costly wars of absolute monarch. An absolute monarch is a ruler with absolute authority which means they have complete control over the citizens of a country. Philosophers and scholars started to realize that reforms needed to happen, so they thought that it would be best if the reforms came from enlightened, benevolent monarchs. Benevolent monarchs are well meaning and kindly which is why enlightened rulers are more for the people then selfish like absolutists. Enlightened rulers are focused on giving power to the people rather then to themselves. 

Joseph II was the holy roman emperor from 1765 to 1790, and he was at first co ruling with his mother, Maria Theresa from 1765 to 1780 and then ruled Austrian Habsburg dominions from 1780 to 1790. This propaganda poster "plays up" Joseph's enlightened act of granting tolerance to Protestant and Jews even though he was Christian. This poster shows enlightenment by having the three religions but saying that they are all Austrians and are the same. The pictures on the poster show that Joseph II joined the three religions together in his own way. However Joseph II was not all about good deeds. He also did somethings that would be considered him as being an absolute ruler. Something he did was that he ended censorship. This was not for the best of the people so it was not an act of enlightenment. He also sold the property of monetarists and convents however he did it so he could build hospitals. Joseph II was a more enlightened ruler then Catherine or Fredrick the Great. Joseph II was rightfully called an enlightened monarch. 

Cardinal Richelieu for Absolutopia

The nation of Absolutopia is seeking applicants for an immediate opening for ruler of the country. Qualified candidates will have significant experience as an authoritarian leader. The new king or queen will act in the best interests of the nation, promote its stability and expansion, rule in the name of God, and eliminate all threats both internal and external. Experience managing an army/navy, crushing rebellions, and/or instituting reforms is a plus.

Dear Lord and Lady Manager of Human Resource,

The candidate I am presenting to you is Cardinal Richelieu. He was born on September 9, 1585 in Paris. His father was Grand Provost François du Plessis, Sieur de Richelieu, the chief magistrate of King Henry III, and his mother was Suzanne de la Porte, the daughter of the Councillor of the Parlement of Paris. When Richelieu was only five his father died and his mother decided to move to Poitou with five sibling to live with their grandmother. Richelieu grew up in a family with difficult circumstances. Showing his strength through childhood he went on to be appointed as Cardinal in 1620. Not only had he earned his title for completing his studies but he had become the mediator between Luyne and the queen mother. Four short years later he was appointed as the first minister of the royal court. The supporters of the King had finally convinced him that Richelieu was the right person for the job. He ruled under King Louis XIII of France. In my professional opinion he has accomplished more than the King himself. Richelieu has continued to show his dedication to his job and I believe he is a good candidate to become the next ruler of Absolutopia.

Richelieu has many strength that would qualify him as a model of an absolute ruler. There are six main features that you can find in an absolute ruler. Richelieu contains all these features, but he particularly excels in four of them. Richelieu is a great ruler because he has divine right giving to him by God himself. Richelieu was sent by God making it so that Pope Paul V was able to consecrate him bishop at a young age; on April 17, 1607 Richelieu had officially become bishop of Luçon. Richelieu continued his claim to power by becoming cardinal in 1620 and later on in 1624 being appointed as the first minister of the royal council. As the first minister Cardinal Richelieu decided to use his power to enforce France's powerful army. In 1624 he sent his troops to occupy the Val Telline in northern Italy. Richelieu was trying to protect the area against the ambitions of Spain in response to the pleas of the Protestant Swiss Canton of Grison. However not only had the Spanish become a problem but the Huguenots had signed a treaty with the Spanish. One year after the signing, 1627 Richelieu’s army defeated the Huguenots and they went to claim their new city. Through the struggles of war Richelieu was able to reform the army and navy so they could continue conquering land for France. Richelieu has been appointed to Secretary of State and War for his talents that went unnoticed by Concinci. As you can see Richelieu has been able to use his position to develop a strong army that can protect France and give them more power. With all the power that France has gained Richelieu has not failed to keep the Nobility and Church officials in line. Richelieu has been working on limiting the power of nobility and church officials. He succeed at this in 1630, when he hand picked people for the administration based on their skills and not their family’s ranking or power. He has made it so that the senior nobility are excluded from the important positions and put in places that represent their ability. Richelieu had also made sure that all the provinces that had called their own Estates Generals were brought back into royal authority. He did this by removing powerful nobles from their governing positions and establishing an office of intendants. Now the royal emissaries in the provinces are helping to establish the king’s authority rather than hurting it. Not only was the royal will being jeopardized by just provinces but parliaments were playing a big role in it too. So in 1641 Richelieu was able to take all the power of parliaments and put them back under the ruling of the royals. Richelieu has worked continuously so that parliaments can’t interpret the laws in their regions. When ruling Richelieu has always been strict and he enforces the laws and dispenses justice. So far he has succeeded at crushing any rebellion in hopes of advancing royal absolutism. Not only is enforcing laws important to France but also for the Richelieu's life. Richelieu had to execute some of the minor nobles such as Chalais while throwing the higher nobility in prison for their attempt at killing Richelieu himself. Count of Boutville another highly ranked noble was beheaded outside of Richelieu's window on his order because he had challenged the rules Richelieu had made. Boutville had been dueling and he also rejected all please of clemency. Richelieu had successfully ruled France for years trying to enforce absolutism. This makes him the perfect person to rule Absolutopia because he has already achieved it in France so why wouldn't he be able to do the same thing in Absolutopia.

Cardinal Richelieu is a good candidate for this job. He models with success the many factors of being an absolute ruler. It is even said that he might become one of the key figures in the growth of royal absolutism in Europe. Cardinal Richelieu is a little ambitious and ruthless however he is genius and is devoted to what he is doing. He has been able to run France under absolutism so he should be able to establish absolutism in Absolutopia.

Links:

http://www.edline.net/files/_BFHZD_/1444712bed347cbb3745a49013852ec4/Cardinal_Richelieu_-_World_History__The_Modern_Era.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_BFHZD_/1444712bed347cbb3745a49013852ec4/Cardinal_Richelieu_-_World_History__The_Modern_Era.pdf

Colonies formed by Persuasion

The Middle Colonies

The Southern Colonies

The Middle and Southern colonies were settled by many different people looking for a better life away from their old one. In order to fully understand the reasons why these colonies were settled we took a look at each one individually. In class we were put into groups and assigned a colony to focus on. I was put in a group with two other classmates of mine and we were assigned the New Jersey colony. After we were assigned the New Jersey colony we read an article that our teacher had picked out for us. Using this article we were able to answered the assigned questions. These questions focused on why this colony was founded, by who, and what went on in the colony. After my group had answered the questions and got them checked over by our teacher we went on to start the video. We wrote a script and found images that would represent the New Jersey colony in a positive way. The goal of the video was to try and persuade people to move to the New Jersey colony. When the videos had been completed by each group we watched them as a class and were able to discuss. For each colony we wrote down the main points that answered the questions we were assigned. This way we were able to view each colony in more depth.

The New Jersey colony was founded in 1603 by Henry Hudson. Henry Hudson had claimed the land for the Dutch although he was British because he worked for the Netherlands. They decided to settle in New Jersey because it allowed for expansion, trading, and refuge for the Quakers that came from England. New Jersey was claimed by the British in 1664 and was placed under the rule of two leaders, Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. Berkeley had control over the west side and Carteret controlled the east side. In order for the settlement to thrive they set up trading colonies along Hoboken and Jersey City. New Jersey was also a colony that had many manufacturers. They manufactures all sorts of things like iron, plows, tools, kettles, locks, and nails which they then exported to England. New Jersey was also a very diverse colony. The dutch, Swedish, and Fins were the first to settle joining the Delaware Indians that had lived in New Jersey before the colony was established.  Also there were many people settling because land was sold at low prices and Carteret and Berkeley allowed religious freedom to the people. The result of this was a colony that had about 100,000 people. The video below explains this all in an attempt to try and convince people at the time of the New jersey colony to settle there. 

Many articles and commercials  use ethos, pathos and logos to convince people to buy or do something. In our commercial we used ethos and pathos. Ethos is appealing to the audience using credibility and trustworthiness. In our case we talked about the leaders of the New Jersey colony and what they allow the settlers to do. Pathos is more of an emotional feel, so the argument appeals to the audiences emotions and makes them believe you. We were able to use ethos by allowing many different options for what you can do in the New Jersey colony that can apply to all sorts of people. The one appeal we did not use was Logos. Logos is using facts and data to persuade your audience. This could be shown by using numbers to describe something or percent of things.The people that settled in New Jersey were persuaded by others to come and settle because they thought there was something in New Jersey for them.

A City Upon the Ground

In this lesson the goal was to try and fully understand the Puritans that settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. We did this by trying to answer the essential question helping us focus on the main idea of what we were learning. The essential question we were answering for this lesson was; Were the Puritans and Massachusetts Bay Colony a "Model of Christian Charity" as John Winthrop claimed they would be? It is important to answer this question while we study because this is what most of the Puritans and citizens of England were debating themselves. The Puritans didn't know if they had fulfilled their duties of being a representation of the perfect settlement and the citizens of England didn't know if it was worth it to leave and go to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. We also need to realize that this is the most important topic and the goal of what we should be learning. We were able to find the answer to this question in class by doing multiple activities. We analyzed three sources one by John Winthrop, one by Reverend John Cotton, and one by Anne Hutchinson. We also watched a video while taking down the key points and we read a couple of articles about the Salem witch trials from different people's points of views. These all lead us to the idea that John Winthrop was wrong about the Puritan colony and they were not a "Model of Christian Charity." 

The Puritans came to the New World in search of a place they could practice their religion openly because they were not excepted by King Charles in England. When they got to the New World they planed on being a model for the rest of the settlements that would take place in the New World. The Puritans goal was to try and make the church pure. In 1625, King Charles becomes king and he hated Puritans just as much as his father did. So, the puritans wanted to leave England to get away from King Charles and practice their religion. John Endicott started this by getting permission from Plymouth colony to settle 60 puritans in Salem. Then King Charles agreed to let the Puritans set up a charter to settle in New England while in England he tried to push the citizens to worship in the Anglican Church . This upset a lot of people and they left to go to New England along with the Puritans. Since so many people were leaving England King Charles decided that he would cancel the charter. However, the people decide to fight rather then give it up and King Charles at the time was having problems in England so he kept the charter as it was. John Winthrop, a founder in the Massachusetts Bay Colony wanted to make the colony one to be looked after, so he told the people that "We must treat other settlers as our brothers. We must enjoy each other. We must make others' problems our own. We must rejoice together, mourn together, work and suffer together, always remembering that we are one." John Winthrop was saying that in order for their colony to succeed they all had to be selfless. He wanted everybody to look out for one another and work as one team. For John Winthrop's idea of having the settlement be a representation for others everybody needed to act a certain way there were no rules that could be broken. This wasn't very realistic though because even the most selfless person by human nature will make mistakes and focus on themselves.

When the Puritans arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony they thought that God had made the land just for them, so people that where there before them like the Pequot Indians were not welcomed and were attacked by the Puritans on their own land. In John Cotton's speech he stated that "God either lets man discover a country themselves or, upon hearing the land had been discovered by others, God sends them to it." The Puritans thought that they owned the land in Massachusetts and it was all for them because they thought God had put it there for them. The Puritans thought that God had set up the perfect spot for their settlement when they got there because there were already cleared fields from the colony of Indians that had died from disease. They also believed that if God made this land there then they were the only ones who were supposed to occupy it. "God makes room for a people to live there when he drives those who live there away with a just war." (John Cotton) The Puritans though that they were allowed to take the land away from  the Indians. They saw the dying of the Pequot's from diseases as a sign that they were being taken away from the land so that the Puritans could have it by God. So they thought that the only way to rightfully own all their land was to kill off the rest of the Pequot with a war. The Puritans then decided to plan a surprise attack on the Pequot village. However, when they were planning it out it turned a massacre not a war. The Puritans had planed the attack out thoroughly. When they got to the Pequot village they attacked everybody even women and children. They soon realized that hand to hand combat was not going to work so they decided to start burning down everything. There is nothing about this massacre that was justified on the Puritans part. They did believe God had given them the land and that they could have a just war to move them from the land but this was not a just war. In order for this to have been justified the Pequot people would have had to know about the fight and they wouldn't have women and children there; only men. If the Puritans truly believe that they were doing this because of God they wouldn't have planned out the attack as much as they did because they would have thought that God would help them win it. Even in the colony you can see that they are not "a city upon a hill." The people in Massachusetts Bay Colony were not at all excepting of Anne Hutchinson or anybody like her. The women in the colony were not treated fairly and Anne Hutchinson is a great example of this. She was a very religious women and had thirteen kids these qualities of her appealed to the colony's ways. However, she tried to interpret the Bible for herself and she held public meeting criticizing for the local ministers. Although this was not excepted at the time Anne Hutchinson was not treated fairly at the trials. All the facts that she stated at her religious trial were accurate and people were offended at the thought of her being right so they banished her. This is not fair because they should not have looked at her differently then they would have a man. Another example is Mary Dyer, a follower of Anne Hutchinson was hanged for supposedly being rebellious while all she did was just speak her mind. Then there were the Salem Witch trial which were truly unfair and unjustified. For example Sarah Good a lady who was hanged for supposedly practicing witch craft. When she went to trial the only evidence that the judge had was the accounts of three little girls. This is not fair at all because they were just children and all they had for evidence was the girls acting out which any child does at their age. During the Salem Witch Trials the people were just to afraid to let ladies that went to court go free with their life. They were willing to except one small piece of evidence as if it were enough to imprison and hang them. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was more of a representation of the cruelest colony then the kindest colony. 
I believe that John Winthrop was inaccurate when he claimed the Massachusetts Bay Colony was a "Model of Christian Charity." The Massachusetts Bay Colony was an example of prejudices and unjustified behavior. If they really wanted to be a model of the ideal Christian they wouldn't have planed a massacre and killed all the Pequot. They would have left it up to God and had a small just war if they even had one. Also they wouldn't have punished people for wanting to understand the Bible they would have respected them and treated them as if they were one with the rest of the citizen. Then they wouldn't have hanged people just for the reason of them being different and on accusations instead of real evidence because God would have taken that person away himself. The Puritans did not understand what it truly was like to be a follower of God because they betrayed Him in their actions. They were not a colony that others looked up to or should have looked up to. 

Links:
Pequot Video - 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfxRm8ZXsw&feature=youtu.be (Part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G92duTgaZ_A&feature=youtu.be  (Part 2)
Notes from Pequot Video -
https://todaysmeet.com/room/1501962/transcript 
Lesson Notes (Including the documents) - 
http://www.edline.net/files/_7RIIN_/21ea4a09b0cc1bc23745a49013852ec4/Activity_5_-_Puritans_Lesson_2.pdf 
Salem Witch Trials - 
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/people/

The Death of Early Jamestown

By 1611, 80% of the settlers that had come to Early Jamestown had died. Jamestown is located in modern day Virginia. The area where the English settled was already inhabited by the Powhatan Indians. However, the Indians were not the ones the English were trying to protect themselves from it was the Spanish. They settled in the spot where Jamestown is because it was near water, fertile and has more protection from the Spanish. In Early Jamestown, which was from 1607 to 1611 many English colonists died because of environmental issues, poor relations with the Powhatan Indians and lack of settler skills.

The first reason why so many colonists died in Early Jamestown is because of environmental issues. The rivers and creeks became full of brackish water because as the water levels rose the salty water from the ocean entered the freshwater. (Document A) There were many deaths because diseases was more common with filth festering in the water instead of flushing away. It also wouldn't be healthy for the English because they may have used that water to drink or use for other resources and it was not completely fresh. Also there was little rainfall in the years of Early Jamestown making for bad growth and agriculture. (Document B) This lead to more deaths because with little rainfall the English would have a hard time growing crops for food. Little rainfall and brackish water are two main environmental issues that lead to great death in Early Jamestown.

Secondly, many Early Jamestown colonists died because they had poor relationships with the Indians.The English were able to get shiploads of grains from the Indians but in return they did terrible things to the Indians like cutting off their heads. (Document D) The English were making themselves enemies of the Indians. They had cut off their people’s heads and the Indians wouldn't just allow them to get away with that. They would look for revenge on the English. The English would not know that they have another group of people to watch out for they would not be expecting an attack from the Powhatan Indians. The Indians were capable and killed nearly half of the English men in battle. (Document E) This is leading to more deaths because people are now fighting and killing each other. The Indians and English are now at war and the English do not have much protection from the Powhatan because when they settled they were not planning on war with them. The English created a bad relationship with the Indians by bringing in violence which then lead to many of the English’s deaths.

The early settlers in Jamestown lacked skills which lead to their many deaths. Of the 110 original settlers in 1607, six were governors, forty-seven were gentlemen, twelve were laborers, four were carpenters, four were boyes, and twenty-eight had an unknown occupation. (Document C) The English had a very low variety of jobs. The jobs that were actually useful like surgeon and apothecaries only had a single person in the occupation. The useless jobs, which meant that the people did not work and get their hands dirty were taken up by the majority of the population. These jobs were like the gentlemen who had forty-seven people in the occupation. The majority of the population in Early Jamestown did nothing to contribute in a positive way to the settlement. This lead to many of their deaths because people would get sick and they would not be able to get cured because of the lack of a doctor. Also if they might not have enough for a job that gets them the resources they need to make a settlement. The English settlers didn't have many skills which lead to their many deaths.

There were many deaths of colonists from 1607 to 16011 because of environmental issues, poor relationships with Indians, and lack of settler skills. The ocean created brackish water in the freshwater rivers causing an unhealthy and filthy environment for the colonists. The English started a bad relationship with the Indians by stealing and killing their crops and people. The majority of the English settlers that came to Jamestown were gentlemen who did not work to help out the settlement. In order to have something new to succeed then you need to have a good relationship with the people it affects, adapt to the surrounding environment or how it may affect your goal and work hard. 

Bibliography:
Document A - Dennis B. Blanton, “Jamestown’s Environment,” Center for Archaeological Research, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, 2000. 
Document B - “The Lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts,” Science, April 24, 1998.
Document C - John Smith, The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, Book III, 1624. 
Document D - Ivor Noel Hume, The Virginia Adventure, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994. 
Document E - J. Frederick Fausz, “An Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides: England’s First Indian War, 1609-1614”, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, January 1990.

Atahualpa Looks for the Truth

   

Atahualpa
http://digital.library.unt.edu
/ark:/67531/metadc41704/ 

                Atahualpa was the leader of the Inca village that the Spaniards arrived in. The Inca saw Atahualpa as the son of the sun, so they treated him like a god. The Spanish came to the Inca village with the goal of converting the Incas to Christianity in mind. They confronted Atahualpa in front off thousands of Incas and declare their proposal. There are many different sources that have been written that explain the popes encounter with Atahualpa. In theses sources they all tell different stories. Some of which make no sense and are based off biased point of views and some that tell the complete story accurately. It can be hard to find which source is accurately telling the events of this meeting between Atahualpa and the Spanish pope. In class we did an activity with three different sources on this event. We used the textbook's point of view and two other documents one taken from the account of a Spanish explorer and one account from Pizarro. Our class split up into three groups; each group was assigned one of the sources, then we had to come up with a skit that explained what happened in the document. Once everybody was ready we presented the skits and compared them in a whole class discussion. After we had created the closest story we could we watched a short video of the accurate story of Atahualpa and the Spaniards encounter.

                   The textbook is not a reliable source for information on this topic. The textbook states "Atahualpa held the book to his ear and listened to it. When the book didn't speak, he threw it on the ground." This is not what happened when Atahualpa received the book from the Spanish Friar. This account doesn't even make sense. Atahualpa knew that this book wasn't going to speak to him he just didn't know how to open it. Atahualpa and the Inca's didn't have a written language so they had never seen a

Pizarro
http://www.biography.com/people/francisco-pizarro-9442295

book before. Document A was a reliable source when looking at this event. It accurately explains what Atahualpa did with the bible. "Atahualpa asked for the Book, that he might look at it, and the priest gave it to him closed. Atahualpa did not know how to open it...........Then he opened it himself, and, without any astonishment at the letters and paper, he threw it away from him five or six steps" Atahualpa didn't try to listen to the book. Atahualpa struggled with opening the book then when he got it open the words didn't make sense to him so he threw it on the ground thinking it was worthless. Also in the Textbook version of this story they make it seem like the attacking started right away. While the Spanish Pope had to go and tell Pizarro, who then ordered his men to attack. This is states correctly in Document A and document B. These sources all tell different stories because some are biased and are in favor of one of theses groups. The textbook is biased and is on the side of the Spaniards. It said that Atahualpa held the book to his ear to make him seem dumb and unintelligent while he just didn't have the knowledge on that certain object. Many sources can be biased to support what a group of people does or says. Some sources are based of Primary sources that didn't actually know what happened at the time and made up the story that they had written. Primary sources can't always be relied on and you have to be careful about what sources to use. 

                Through this lesson I have learned to try and base my research off of multiple sources. It is important to have one source from each point of view, so in this case one source from the Spaniards and one source from the Inca's, but because they didn't have a written language a source from someone that could write that was in favor of the Inca's. Although the textbook is supposed to be a reliable source it really isn't. The textbook bases their information off of one source that may not be all that accurate. However, people have learned  to only believe what is in the textbook which is not a smart thing. We have to use the textbook then use other sources and decide if the textbook is telling the right story or not. In theses sources you should be able to identify the perspective it is from. You have to think of who the document is in favor of. If you read all documents in favor of one side and none from the other side you could be reading multiple sources and still not get the correct story. So you have to be able to identify the biased and use that information to find the next source and decide the true story for yourself. When researching history it can be hard to find good reliable sources, but if you don't your story could be completely different from what actually happened. 

Pizarro helps Atahualpa
https://wikis.engrade.com/colonialisminbolivia/3 

Link to Sources:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6NLRg_/a1ef44fb0b0778ce3745a49013852ec4/Atahualpa_and_the_Bible_0.pdf 

A World of Inequality all the Way Back to 1492

The Colombian Exchange

The Colombian exchange is the exchange of diseases, food crops, populations (people and animals), and cultures between the New World and Old World after the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492. The Colombian Exchange began when Christopher Columbus first arrived in America in 1492. He had brought horses and other animals and food with him that were new to the Indians. This began the exchange because the Europeans were bringing over goods to the Natives while the Native were also trading things with the Europeans. Both the Americas and the Europeans had begun the exchange of goods which soon led into the exchange of diseases and people along with the plants. animals, and food. The New World (the Americas) however didn't benefit as much as the Old World (Europe, Asia, and Africa)  did form this exchange.


The Old World had more benefits from this exchange then the New World. They received cash crops from the Natives that lived in the Americas. Some of these cash crops were sugar and tobacco. These were very valuable to the Europeans because they could not grow this on their own at the time, so there value was ranked highly. There was a demand for theses crops by the people because they needed theses crops that they hadn't known about. Also they could starts growing them in Europe once they got them from the Natives. The Natives also received crops like bananas, coffee beans, and grapes but the suffering was larger then the profit form the goods they received. 

The Great Dying

The New World suffered through this exchange. The Europeans and others were bringing diseases with them to the New World hen they came. The New World had never experienced theses symptoms and diseases before. All of theses things were new to them. So they didn't have experience with curing them. The Old World kept on bringing new diseases every time they came. They tried to stop people from coming once they found out that the people from the Old World were causing it. However, they didn't have the power to stop people from sailing and settling on their land. This lead to the Great Dying. The Natives went through suffering like aching bones, small pox, burning chest, and high fever. Typical Native American societies lost 90% of there population in the years following Christopher Columbus's expedition.

Triangular Trade

This Colombian Exchange is also know as the unequal exchange because of the suffering in the New
World and the benefits in the Old World. It is known as the unequal exchange because the Old World hurt the New World population with bringing in diseases while the Old World was receiving money and power from selling the crops they were receiving form the Old World. These exchange had brought success for most of the world at one point, but when people began the exchange of disease and other people it hurt the New World and kill off most of it's original inhabitants. The Colombian exchange was the exchange of benefits to the New World and suffering to the Old World.




Link to Resources on the Colombian Exchange: 
 http://www.edline.net/pages/Reading_HS/Classes/1415_10211202/Unit_2_-_Scientific_Revolutio_/Unit_2_Activity_3_-_Columbian_