Global History and Geography III Regents Exam: Enduring Issues Essay (With Answer)

This question is based on the accompanying documents. The question is designed to test your ability to work with historical documents. Some of these documents have been edited for the purposes of this question. As you analyze the documents, take into account the source of each document and any point of view that may be presented in the document. Keep in mind that the language and images used in a document may reflect the historical context of the time in which it was created.
 

Directions: Read and analyze each of the five documents and write a well-organized essay that includes an introduction, several paragraphs, and a conclusion. Support your response with relevant facts, examples, and details based on your knowledge of social studies and evidence from the documents.
 

An enduring issue is a challenge or problem that has been debated or discussed across time. An enduring issue is one that many societies have attempted to address with varying degrees of success.
 

Task:
- Identify and define an enduring issue raised by this set of documents
- Argue why the issue you selected is significant and how it has endured across time
 

In your essay, be sure to:

1. Identify the enduring issue based on a historically accurate interpretation of at least three documents

2. Define the issue using relevant evidence from at least three documents

3. Argue that this is a significant issue that has endured by showing:
–How the issue has affected people or has been affected by people
–How the issue has continued to be an issue or has changed over time

4. Include relevant outside information from your knowledge of social studies

In developing your answer to Part III, be sure to keep these explanations in mind:
Identify—means to put a name to or to name.
Define—means to explain features of a thing or concept so that it can be understood.
Argue—means to provide a series of statements that provides evidence and reasons to support a conclusion.
 

Document 1
This excerpt is from the United Nations Press Release of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message on the International Day for Preventing Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict commemorated on November 6, 2012.

. . .We must also acknowledge that durable peace and post-conflict development depend on environmental protection and good governance of natural resources. There can be no peace if the resource base that people depend on for sustenance and income is damaged or destroyed—or if illegal exploitation finances or causes conflict.
Since 1990, at least 18 violent conflicts have been fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources such as timber, minerals, oil and gas. Sometimes this is caused by environmental damage and the marginalization [making powerless] of local populations who fail to benefit economically from natural resource exploitation. More often it is caused by greed. . . .
To date, six United Nations peacekeeping missions have been mandated to support the host country’s ability to re-establish control over its resource base and stop illicit [unlawful] extraction by armed groups. However, we need a greater international focus on the role of natural resource management in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. . . .

Source: UN Press Release, SG/SM/14615-OBV/1156, November 1, 2012 United Nations online
 

Document 2
Muslin was a type of handwoven cotton fabric fit for emperors produced in Dacca (Dhaka), a part of India before the arrival of Europeans. Muslin today is a lightweight inexpensive machine-made cotton fabric.

. . .Dhaka’s Muslin was felled [demolished] by colonialism’s potent mix of the Industrial Revolution and the Maxim gun. Before that fall, though, there was another rise. Europeans came to India at the beginning of the 16th century and were astonished not only at the quality and volume of its cotton textiles, but also by its extensive, far-flung trade. Soon Indian cotton textiles were exported more than ever to Europe, in exponentially increasing volumes, with Bengal taking the lion’s share. Fortunes were made. As the economist K. N. Chaudhuri noted, from the earliest times “exports from eastern India . . . were a perennial [endless] source of prosperity to merchants of every nation.” . . .
But muslin’s days were numbered. The British colonial apparatus, whether in the form of the East India Company or as direct rule by the Crown, was a vast extractive machine. So too had been the Mughal state, which had herded the weavers into designated workshops called kothis to labor in harsh, even punitive, conditions. But compared to the pitiless operations of the British, the Mughals were models of mercy. On one side, both Company and Crown squeezed the farmers and the weavers until nothing was left, then squeezed some more. On the other, a factoryproduced, mass-product “muslin” rolled off the newly invented power looms in Lancashire cotton mills. Aided by a raft [large number] of tariffs, duties and taxes, British cotton textiles flooded not only the European markets, but the Indian ones as well, bringing Bengal’s handloom cotton industry, and muslin, to its knees. . . .

Source: Khademul Islam, “Our Story of Dhaka Muslin,” AramcoWorld, May/June 2016
 

Document 3
This 1906 cartoon depicting King Leopold II of Belgium as a snake appeared in the British magazine, Punch.

 

Document 4
This is an excerpt from a case study lesson on the timber conflict in Cambodia.

The civil war from 1970 to 1975, the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to 1979, and the Cambodia-Vietnam War from 1978 to 1979 virtually destroyed Cambodia’s economy. Although rice is Cambodia’s most important crop and a staple of the Khmer diet, by 1974, under wartime conditions, rice had to be imported, and production of Cambodia’s most profitable export crop, rubber, fell off sharply. Between 1976 and 1978, hundreds of thousands of people died from malnutrition, overwork, and mistreated or misdiagnosed diseases. . . .
Both sides in the Cambodian civil war, the Government and the Khmer Rouge, used timber to fund their war efforts. Global Witness estimated the value of the Thai-Cambodian cross-border timber trade to the Khmer Rouge was approximately $10-$20 million per month in 1995. Conflict over timber resources has led to mass torture, exploitation, and forced displacement in Cambodia. In addition, timber exploitation has wreaked havoc on the environment and local economies. Extensive deforestation has had severe repercussions for indigenous populations, exacerbating [aggravating] the grievances which lead to rebellion and conflict. . . .

Source: Timber Conflict Case Study: Cambodia, Global Witness: “Summary of the Cambodia Campaign: The Forestry Reform Process”
 

Document 5
Blood diamond, also called conflict diamond as defined by the United Nations (UN), is any diamond that is mined in areas controlled by forces opposed to the legitimate, internationally recognized government of a country and that is sold to fund military action against that government.

Sample Response:

The Age of Imperialism was a time in history when powerful European empires colonized large sections of the world, particularly in India and Africa. During the process of establishing these colonies, Europeans often exploited the local resources in these regions for their own economic benefit. The exploitation of local resources is defined as outside nations taking land, labor, and/or capital from native populations for the economic and/or political benefit of the outside nation. This causes harm to the native region’s environment, government, and/or society as a whole. It also results in a lack of economic opportunities for the native population and conflicts over who should control those resources. Although the Age of Imperialism largely created this issue, the exploitation of local resources has unfortunately been a continuing problem over time as resources have been (and continue to be) exploited in regions of India and Africa.

For centuries, many powerful European nations exploited the resources of the regions they colonized. When European nations first began to colonize the Americas in the 16th century, they exploited the local resources for their own financial gain. Native populations in the Americas were forced to work on encomiendas (large plantations), where they farmed or mined for resources. As the size of these native populations dwindled due to disease and being overworked, slaves from Africa were brought over to the Americas (via the Middle Passage) to replace the enslaved natives. As a result of this exploitation, countries like Spain and Britain became increasingly wealthy and powerful. In fact, they were able to expand their empires to other regions of the world.

Britain built a large empire around the world with many colonies, but one colony that was key to Britain’s success, wealth, and power was India. Indian textiles, such as cotton and muslin, were exported from India “in exponentially increasing volumes,” which made fortunes for Britain (Doc. 2). Although this exploitation of resources greatly benefited Britain, it had a largely negative impact on the local Indian population. The British pushed the native Indian farmers and weavers to the point of exhaustion and “squeezed the farmers and the weavers until nothing was left, then squeezed some more” (Doc. 2). Eventually, many native Indian industries were destroyed as a direct result of this exploitation. Another result was that many individuals began to resist foreign exploitation. Resistance movements, such as Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March and the Textile Boycott, were organized. This caused tension and conflict between Britain and India, but it ultimately led to India’s independence.

The exploitation of resources has continued to be a serious issue in the 20th and 21st centuries, particularly in countries throughout Africa, and this issue has incited a global response. Africa has become an example of how the exploitation of resources often leads to conflict among local populations. In Africa, where diamond resources are plentiful, the exploitation of these resources has led to wars and has prevented legitimate governments from taking control of the region and its resources. Near the end of the 20th century, throughout Africa, there were “countries where rebels [funded] civil war with diamonds,” “countries where diamonds and/or weapons [passed],” and a steady “flow of diamonds and weapons” (Doc. 5).

Trading diamonds for European weapons led to civil war in places like Sierra Leone, where the Revolutionary United Front fought an eleven-year war for control of the diamond mines and for control over the region as a whole (Doc. 5).

The recognition of “blood diamonds,” or “conflict diamonds” as they were defined by the United Nations toward the end of the 20th century, supports the claim that the exploitation of local resources is a serious issue that has continued into the modern day (Doc. 5).

The United Nations has not only acknowledged this issue, but it has also taken some measures “to support the host country’s ability to re-establish control over its resource base and stop illicit [unlawful] extraction by armed groups” (Doc. 1).

However, the UN does admit that this issue requires “a greater international focus on the role of natural resource management in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacebuilding” (Doc. 1).

Throughout global history, resources have been exploited by those who had the power to exploit them, which had a detrimental impact on local populations. Dating back to the colonial period, in which slavery was widespread, and continuing into the Age of Imperialism, European nations became wealthy and powerful by exploiting the resources of colonized nations. Indian industries, as well as the Indian farmers and weavers themselves, suffered.

Many African countries were plagued with violence that was tied to the exploitation of diamond resources. Although the United Nations has taken some steps to bring this issue to light and to work toward resolving it, clearly this issue has persisted into the modern day and requires more immediate attention and action.