European Expansion Essays - Fall Of Tenochtitlan, Colonial Mexico

European Expansion Bernal Diaz del Castillo accompanied Captain Hernan Cortez in his march on Tenichitilan (Mexico City) in 1519, resulting in the surrender of this Aztec capital in 1521. Castillo contends that he will give us the honest account of what happened and not to give a bias opinion of what happened. We read three different sections from his book. The first is his trip to the Caribbean, the second is his encounter in Cholula, and the third is the aftermath of the fall of Tenochtitlan. In theses sections we are trying to find the underlying themes, what the role of the conquerors was, and finally, what events does Castillo seem to refute. Since Castillo tried to give a pure account so it is hard to say that there are hidden controversies. The only hidden text that I could find was that of misconception intentionally given by the Indians of peace. They only presented the troop with peace so they could get the troop to follow them into an ambush. The trend seems to follow in the next section, were they the troop is greeted very hospitably by the men of importance from Cholula. While in the care of the Cholula they were striped of almost all food and resources. Cortes tried repeatedly to negotiate with the Caciques who had turned against them. Cortes told them that he was needed to talk to Montezuma who was the leader. The whole point of these journeys was to spread Christianity. Throughout the different times Cortes would say that God would prevent any harm that would come to the men. This was a tactic to give confidence to the men who doubted him. If God was on their side than no one could defeat them. At the end of the last section the men were mad at Cortes because they thought that he was keeping all the money for himself. Castillo seemed to have respect for Cortes, for he was a great warrior leader, and he never gave a bad opinion or comment toward Cortes. I thought that Castillo gave a good account. In comparison to the letter written by Columbus, Castillo's story seemed to have less, or at least less obvious, hidden agendas. Castillo letter was not trying to persuade anyone to give him more money or supplies but he was trying to write a story from past years and tell the truth the best he could.

Capitalism Vs Socialism Essays - Economic Ideologies, Free Essays

Capitalism Vs Socialism Essays - Economic Ideologies, Free Essays Capitalism Vs Socialism Compare and Contrast Capitalism and Socialism Capitalism and socialism are both types of systems in different societies throughout the world that have been successful at times, but also not so fortunate in its success at other times in history. Both have their good and bad points, although the main focus I am presenting will acknowledge socialism in better terms than the capitalist economy. This is to judge which system will be most prosperous, for the most amount of time, in the majority of peoples lifetimes. Also, opinions from socialists are given to how they examine a capitalist society, and how capitalists examine a socialist society. Criticism is given in each ones point of view, along with defending arguments. Also, my personal opinion is the main conclusion to which economy is the most prosperous based on facts contributed in my own research on both capitalism and socialism. The definition for capitalism would be a form of social system that separates the economy from the state. Laissez faire is another name that was given by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith. He said it is better for a government to have no intervention in the economy at all. Capitalism is based upon private ownership of property and every person has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses, as long as he does not violate the rights of others. Individuals are allowed to run their own businesses in a free market in such way that he or she creates the wealth for him or her self. It usually depends on how self-motivated a person is to determine how wealth they will become. If a person is always working hard to make money, they most likely will, compared to a bum who can not get welfare in this type of system. Capitalists believe that the only purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from force or fraud. They claim that the force is the protection of individuals rights. T his is achieved in such ways as the use of police force to protect the rights of citizens at home, a military to protect citizens from foreign attack, and a court system to enforce contracts and settle disputes between residents. Capitalists also feel that initiating force can only violate rights, thus the government only uses force in relation of those who initiate it. For instance, if an individual can not start his own electric company, it is a violation of his freedoms. A capitalists argument towards this statement would be that the governments legal monopoly on utility companies prevents people from starting their own electric company. In a capitalist society all people can start any kind of business they want. The protections of monopolies are not there. If a person wants to take the chance on their own company, even if it is next to one that is successful, the peril is in their own hands. The only law capitalists clearly state, and one must follow is that members of society can not infringe on the rights of others. They give credence to holding individual rights as absolutes, and freedoms as absolutes. From a purely economic view, a capitalist is a person who buys in order to sell for profit. Socialism is quite different compared to capitalism, almost like an exact opposite. Instead of the ownership of private property, the government plays a large role where society owns social property such as banks and factories. Although, they own it through the government. Socialism is a society where the