Could anyone please grade my dbq?

PROMPT: Evaluate the extent to how indigenous people’s responses to state expansion differed from 1750-1900.

The process of industrialization began in England and soon spread throughout European countries. Industrialization first began in Europe due to the fact that there were many resources and had a lot of access to water. Industrializing helped Europe by allowing it to make various things faster and gave it an advantage over the other countries in the world. This made them get thirsty for more power and led to countries wanting more resources. To get more resources, they began to colonize various nations which were rich in resources. They mostly did this forcefully, so indigenous people have various reactions to this. Although most indeginous people disliked state expansion, their reactions differed in many ways, some raising armies and choosing a violent approach while others chose a more formal and peaceful approach.

Some indeginous nations took the violent approach to make sure they did not get affected by foreign influence and power. For example, Document 3 shows an ethiopian painting of the battle of adowa, which was a war between the ethiopians and the italians and was won by the ethiopians. This shows that Ethiopia, raised a massive army as depicted in the painting, in order to get rid of the italians trying to gain control of Ethiopia. Since this is a painting made by an Ethiopian, the painting portrays the Italians as weaker than they really were, in order to make Ethiopia look more strong. The reason italians were trying to forcefully take control over the Ethiopians, is because they believed that it was their duty to make sure idigenous people were more civilized. This duty is called the White Man’s Burden. This affects how Europeans see state expansion because to them, it feels like the right thing to do and that they have to do it no matter what. This is why they choose a forceful approach. Additionally, in Document 2, Tonghak believers raise an army called the Righteous army, in order to secure peace of the nation. This shows that some Koreans decided to raise an army and oppose foregn domination of Korea. By doing this, they took a more violent path to protect their nation.

Other indegeous people took the opposite path and decided to take a more peaceful approach to make sure they were safe and were not owned by the Europeans. For example, in document 1, the ashanti leader refuses England protection of Ashanti. This shows how the ruler decided to be more friendly and politely refuse to make sure that the Ashanti could still be friendly with England. The way the ruler says “protection of Her Majesty the Queen of England” shows how she is trying to be formal in order to not be disrespectful and cause England to dislike the Ashanti. The ruler does this because she is the ruler of the Ashanti and only wants the well being of the nation. Similarly, in document 4, the Queen of Hawaii, sends a letter to the U.S to formally protest against the “assertion of ownership by the United States”. This shows how she is trying to be respectful and also be stubborn about opposing the U.S dominance on Hawaii.

Unlike most indigenous nations, China, who was isolated from the rest of the world for a long time, decided to improve their country using some western influence in the self- strengthening movement. They did this because they lost to Britain in the Opium wars and were divided up into spheres of influence. The movement, however, failed.

Therefore, although most indeginous people disliked state expansion, their reactions differed in many ways, some raising armies and choosing a violent approach while others chose a more formal and peaceful approach.

I’d just like to give you some feedback on your thesis. I am a fan of clarity, clarity, clarity. The more clear you are with stating your arguments clearly, the better you will be at supporting them with valid evidence. AND, the easier it will be for you to seek that evidence when you go to the documents. The beginning of your thesis seems to be setting the context. However, even though this is pertinent, this information needs to be more directly tied to state expansion and indigenous response to it. You explain the process of industrialization in its own right, which is not really pertinent to state expansion. To use this as context say something more along the lines of… State expansion must be understood in the context of industrial expansion. As industrialization that began in England swept across all of Europe, this gave Europeans not only a technological edge over their global counterparts, but also imbued them with a sense of cultural superiority that drove their imperial practices during this time period. THEN… make your arguments clearly. Indigenous people responded in by either/or (which you do note in the last sentence of your thesis).

1 Like

Thank you so much for the feedback! It really helps out a lot.

Fiveable Logo

2550 north lake drive
suite 2
milwaukee, wi 53211



about for students for parents for teachers for schools & districts content team privacy contact


🥇 2020 Fiveable Olympics study plans upcoming events trivia hypertyper resources cram passes


community tiktok discord twitter instagram facebook careers

*ap® and advanced placement® are registered trademarks of the college board, which was not involved in the production of, and does not endorse, this product.

© fiveable 2020 | all rights reserved.