AP European History November 5 – 9 2018

See information about the start of the Unit Test on Tuesday and DBQ due on ThursdayMONDAY (Book and Notes will be quite helpful)

Partner Review activity for the next Unit Test

Materials Strategy/FormatReview Questions Review/assessment Think-Pair-Share

Instructions Today working together or alone complete the review of key terms, people, concepts and ideas of the

Enlightenment and Enlightened Despotism. This is similar to when we have done this in the past when I gave clue questions. There will also be some

wildcard questions from the 1st Unit Test of the quarter.

HomeworkUnit test MC tomorrow and DBQ due on Thursday

TUESDAY (Unit Test MC)Unit Test MC section will be tomorrow covering the following materialsChapter 16 Text pp: 516 – 538Class discussions

Overview of the Enlightenment (notes) Economic and Political philosophes (notes) Cultural aspects of the Enlightenment (text docs) Overview of Enlightened Despotism with Frederick II (notes) The Reign of Peter I and Catherine II of Russia(notes) The Habsburg Dynasty (text reading)

HomeworkWork on this DBQ (yes, it is the same from last weekend)https://www.scarsdaleschools.k12.ny.us/cms/lib5/NY01001205/Centricity/Domain/828/Enlightenment%20DBQ.pdf

Revised AP European History

DBQ Rubric (7 total points)

The Thesis/Claim (0-1 point)Scoring Criteria

You should respond to the prompt with a historically clear and defensible thesis/claim that establishes a line of reasoning

Example: Let say you are faced with a prompt that states, "Louis XIV was the greatest absolutist monarch of the 17th and 18th centuries." You should take an immediate position in the intro paragraph and explain your position. "Louis XIV was the greatest because_________________". Or, Louis XIV was not the greatest because _________________."

Tips about the Thesis/Claim Your thesis should be in the intro paragraph and also addressed again in the body/conclusion paragraphs. If

the prompt asks for a position then you must give one and stick to it. You will not get this point if you just restate the thesis. The College Board says that the thesis can be in the conclusion. This is NOT good writing. The reader needs to immediately know what this essay is about. It is BETTER writing to hammer home your point multiple times.

Example: "Louis XIV was the greatest monarch because he created a cult of personality and state that captivated even the most rebellious nobles. He presided over key political, economic, and military improvements making France a 17th century superpower."

Or, "Louis XIV benefitted from the stable rule of Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIII allowing his power to exist. Without important reforms before his birth Louis XIV could not have been an absolutist. In fact, his constant wars and economic corruption weakened the absolute monarchy leading one day to the French Revolution."

A good essay begins with an intro paragraph that takes a strong position and briefly supports it. It should NEVER be a single sentence and even two sentences are a little week. This is POOR writing. Think of the intro as the preview to a new film. Make it interesting enough to draw in your audience!

Another example of good history writing will always be the time period or span presented in the prompt

Contextualization (0-1 point)Scoring Criteria

Describes the broader historical context relevant to the prompt. This is simply where a good writer discusses pertinent background content relevant to the prompt.

Tips about Contextualization Good history writing sets the stage for the Thesis/prompt that you take. Your context could begin the into

paragraph but should also flow through the essay. Let's take our Louis XIV example. One might begin by discussing the nature of the battles between nobles

vs. monarchs that existed throughout Europe. A good example of context could be that the monarchies had developed new power through military strength, taxation, support of the middle class etc. These innovations weakened the ability of nobles in western Europe to resist the growing power of monarchs. This is good context and it doesn't matter which position that you are taking.

Evidence (0-2 points)Scoring CriteriaOne Point: Uses the content of at least THREE documents to address the Topic. This should include the following: Purpose/POV/Bias/TONE/Significance/Reliability of the source Two Points: Supports the argument/thesis using specific evidence related to the prompt in SIX documents including Purpose/POV/Bias/TONE/Significance/Reliability of the source

Tips about Evidence As in the LEQ this section is the heart of good history writing. I have always believed that being a good

writer is like being a good attorney. No good lawyer wins a case without showing evidence. In this section, you can grab 2 points by explaining 3-6 of the documents themselves using a version of SOAPS analysis.

The procedure involves you taking 3-6 documents and analyzing for Purpose/POV/Bias/TONE/Reliability of the source. Now, they are not expecting detail like I would when we analyze sources. You can do this in just a few sentences. I believe that by the AP exam you will be masterful in this skill. Certain types of documents can for certain types of analysis:

Visuals/Photos/Political Cartoons/Art: You can do all of SOAPS analysis Written sources such as speeches, diary entries, historian’s views etc: You can do all of SOAPS

analysis Statistics and Maps: Only use purpose and significance (while statistics can have a bias you won’t

see this with DBQ documents on the AP exam

Example: Let's say you take the position that Louis XIV was not a great absolutist leader. In the source documents, you have an excerpt from Duke St. Simon’s diary account of Louis XIV. Right away as a diary account questions of reliability, bias, POV should come to mind. Additionally, you note that the source is decades after the king’s death by someone who lived at court. This might lead you to discuss reliability. Perhaps one of your arguments is to point out that the same "cult of personality” that strengthened his reign initially, weakened him in the long run because he was surrounded by "yes-men" who would not tell him the truth about his kingdom's instability. The document might support one or the other of these positions.

Evidence Beyond the Documents (0-1)Scoring CriteriaOne point is awarded for use of a piece of evidence to support the prompt not found in the 7 documents

Tips about EvidenceFor many people this is the hardest section because you must go into your history bank and pull out some details that you are not already given in the source. This cannot be the same as what you might use for synthesis in the section below. And, just like in the section must be explained and not simply cited.

Analysis and Reasoning (1-2 points)Scoring CriteriaOne Point = Uses historical reasoning (e.g. comparison, causation, CCOT) to frame the structure of an argument that addresses the prompt. Two Points = Demonstrates a complex understanding of historical development that is focused on the prompt using evidence that can corroborate, qualify, or modify an argument that addresses the question.

Tips about Analysis and Reasoning This section is largely based on the type of prompt that you face. For example, Louis XIV example is an

example of a causation essay because whichever position you take you'd have to explain the causes of his strength/weakness.

To some degree how effectively you use evidence may get you one point without entering deeper analysis. One of the best (and my favorite) types of analysis would be to explain your position Louis XIV by

comparing him to the impact that Stalin had on the Soviet Union. Both were powerful and built this power with similar methods. Also, their reign could also be shown to have negative consequences.

Another way to achieve two points here could be to show how CCOT occurred even though this is not the type of essay. You could say that Louis XIV started off a powerful monarch but then weakened. And of course, you'd need specific examples here as well.

Grading ScaleSince I must convert your essay score I use this general scale. Clearly, we want to stay above a three and this gives me a little flexibility

TOTAL POINTS (out of 7):_____ 7= 94 6=93 5=87 4=78 3=70 2=57 1=47GRADE:______

WEDNESDAY & THURSDAY (Begin New Unit) Examine key characteristics of 18th century society and culture (PP-2,6,7,9,13)(IS-2,4,9) Examine the causes and effects of the Gin Craze in 18th century Britain

MaterialsPpt/notes/

Strategy/FormatLecture- discussion/Review

Student SkillsContextPeriodizationCCOT

Introduction Chapter 18 in the McKay text is replete

with information about the nature of 18th

century European culture and society (and knowing Mckay you know what that means…wink wink nudge nudge). Some of the material is redundant in that life, especially for the peasantry had changed very little. The major changes for the lower classes will have to wait until the midpoint of the 19th century.

Today we will go over some social and cultural aspects of the 18th century more or less hitting some of the key high points. We will also look at an issue that struck Britain known as the "Gin Craze" which, by way of synthesis sounds a bit like a similar (though later period) in American history related to temperance (early 19th century). The social result of the event was devastating. Children were left for dead in the streets placing more pressure on foundling hospitals. The crime rate in London skyrocketed

Marriage and Families As we have already seen when discussing the nature of serfdom, family structures differed from Western to

Eastern Europe. Though this will be far more pronounced in the next century. But generally, the extended family was dominant. As the century goes the nuclear family will become more common later in Western Europe. So, especially in the early decades, European families were large, consisting of the father, mother, and grandparents and averaged five or more children. Whether in rural or urban settings children were important assets because they took care of their parents when they were old (though that might not have always been treated that way). There were no rest homes for people to go to when they grew old. Government social security systems did not exist either. The family was the social security then.

One of the reasons for the rising population in Europe had to do with early marriage. This was especially true among the lower classes. This basically meant that women were in child bearing years longer thus more opportunity for births (though of course not all children lived). Children married young or their parents betrothed them by arrangement. In the more urban west, children were apprenticed to the local tradesman to learn a trade, or profession. What types of jobs could a young urban girl hope to procure? Only upper class children would go to college or university. The poor did not have schooling as most children do today. Education was not very high on the agenda for the poor, because they were needed to work the family farm or business.

The treatment of children varied with class and location but in either case it was far different than today. As we saw with the Gin Craze in Britain, children were often completely neglected but this wasn’t just due to alcoholism.

As you will see in your book's examination of the 18th century it was a period of great change. There were many positives and negatives that were developing. The population was climbing despite a series of wars. Perhaps surprisingly the Russians saw the largest increase. Literacy rates were climbing and there was a substantial increase in the average diet. Yet, that availability of food also led to a major socio-economic disaster in Britain. The cheapness of corn led to the rapid production of gin and a heightened addiction to alcohol known as the gin craze.

Today we will examine this phenomenon and I think you will see that it remarkably resembled our modern-day drug problem.

Background causes and effects Gin became popular in England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It seems a little odd but gin

was advanced as a patriotic alternative Gin to French brandy at a time of both political and religious conflict between Britain and France. It quickly became the drink of choice among the upper classes. Among the lower classes beer and ale were the major drinks mostly because they could not afford gin.

Between 1689 and 1697, the Government passed a range of legislation aimed at restricting brandy imports and encouraging gin production. Most importantly, the monopoly of the London Guild of Distillers was broken in 1690, thereby opening up the market in gin distillation. The production and consumption of English gin, which was then popular amongst politicians and even Queen Anne, was encouraged by the government.

A major shift in gin consumption started when government occurred for two reasons:1st the average income of most British increased slightly allowing for the purchase of more spirits 2nd the price of corn declined because of good harvests and an end to government price controls (The Corn Laws).

British Government Actions The British government tried a number of times to stop the flow of gin. The 1736 Gin Act taxed retail sales

at a rate of 20 shillings a gallon on spirits and required licensees to take out a £50 annual license to sell gin. The aim was to effectively prohibit the trade by making it economically unfeasible. Only two licenses were ever taken out. Reminiscent of the Prohibition Era in America during the 1910s and 1920s the trade became illegal, consumption dipped but then continued to rise and the law was effectively repealed in 1743 following mass law-breaking and violence (particularly towards informers who were paid £5 to reveal the whereabouts of illegal gin shops). The illegally distilled gin which was produced following the 1736 Act was less reliable and more likely to result in poisoning. At its height, the average Londoner was consuming about 2 and half gallons of gin alone a year (M. Dorothy George, London Life in the Eighteenth Century, 1992)

The social result of the event was devastating. Children were left for dead in the streets placing more pressure on foundling hospitals. The crime rate in London skyrocketed

The Gin Craze began to peter out following the Gin Act 1751. This Act lowered the annual license fees, but encouraged 'respectable' gin selling by requiring licensees to trade from premises rented for at least £10 a year. Historians suggest that gin consumption was reduced not as a result of legislation but because of the rising cost of grain. As we have discussed, there was a noticeable temperature shift resulting in lower harvests and the increased demand and raised the price as well. Landowners could afford to abandon the production of gin, and this fact, coupled with population growth and a series of poor harvests, resulted in lower wages and increased food prices. The Gin Craze had mostly ended by 1757. The government tried to ensure this by temporarily banning the manufacture of spirits from domestic grain; there was a resurgence of gin consumption during the Victorian era, with numerous 'Gin Palaces' appearing by the early 19th century.

No surprisingly the treatment of children grew worse with tough economic times. Also, as the population of Europe rose, resources did not always keep abreast of demographics. As large poor families often fell on hard times, young children were left to fend for themselves much of the time. This was especially true in Europe. The street urchins picked pockets of the wealthy, or stole food from the vendors in the market place, just to get some food. When caught, these young children were treated as adult offenders where punishment was cruel by today’s standards. For example in England, pick pockets would be punished by having their fingers or hands cut off. There were no reform schools then.

Of course the nature of treatment and education changed as one went up the socio-economic ladder (though this was still pretty rare). The richer children had it easier because their needs were met by their family's wealth. These upper class children had tutors to teach them how to read, write and do basic arithmetic. The boys would be prepared for the university. The girls would also be taught the basics but they would go to “finishing schools” to learn how to be proper women when they grew up. One aspect that had started to change slightly from the previous century was that “wet nursing” was common in the west and children

were more a part of family life in the upper classes. A child might spend little of no time with mom until they were older. As you no doubt read, the view of children in this century was often times not positive. One exception to this view can be found in Rousseau’s Emile. In dealing with education and treatment we see vestiges of our modern times. However, Rousseau did call for raising children based upon gender. This is less common now.

As you have seen there was a marked increase in population during this century. What caused the “illegitimacy explosion” that took place in the later decades of the century? Sometimes wet nurses were known as “killing nurses” because they neglected the kids in their care. This may not have been intentional infanticide but that too was a common occurrence especially among the lower classes.

Though it was a step forward foundling homes or orphanages were growing to be more common. These were not really new and existed even during the medieval period under the auspices of the Catholic Church. However, the major change in the 18th century involved funding. Especially in the later decades many wealthy philanthropists developed money toward foundling projects. In some places (Colonge in Germany for example) cities funded these projects but this was rare. And not surprisingly in lean years, that funding was withdrawn. Interestingly in Britain orphans and destitute children were placed in schools that feed into the army and navy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Here the increasing size of armies was an important factor in the growth of the empire.

Medical Practices While the 18th century was a time of scientific advancements, the old ideas of the past still lingered on.

Bloodletting was an ancient medical practice used since the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civilizations and Medieval Europe. Excess blood volume was thought to cause physical and mental illness so some would be leaked from the patient. This procedure is no longer exercised as true causes of illness were discovered and bloodletting did not benefit patients; rather it drained them of energy and possibly made them even more ill from excessive blood loss and/or infection. Also common was cold bathing. During the 18th century, cold bathing and cold water was thought to be of use in curing many ailments. One of the most prominent uses of cold bathing is for fever reduction (which of course can work). A differing modern practice requires a tepid bath because a drastic difference in temperature between the body and the bath could cause shock. Other uses of cold bathing are the cessation of convulsions, insanity, plagues, typhoid fever, and drunkenness. Another treatment that did have some legitimacy was electric shock (in small doses). Many doctors were also starting to realize the link between illness and diet.

Because the basic foods of most Europeans was bread and some vegetables there issues caused by a lack of certain vitamins and minerals. Vitamin A and C deficiencies were very common. In fact, a common nickname for British sailors in the period was called “limeys” after the navy’s wise practice of giving limes and lemons to the fleet.

Here’s a link if you’re interested in weird medical treatments. Be sure and look this over before the FRIDAY Quizhttp://18thcenturyminds.wikispaces.com/Medical+Procedures+and+Medications

Homework WednesdayComplete the DBQ

Homework ThursdayQuiz on the materials from WED/THURS discussions

FRIDAY Quiz on the Gin Craze and social structures in 18th century Europe

Materials Strategy/FormatQuiz forms w/docs Assessment and Review

InstructionsComplete the quiz on your paper but attach a copyNo Homework Three Day Weekened

I know that some fancy yourselves as being cool because they don't stand for the pledge and I'm cool with that. However, there is a time to respect those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that you could have the right of free speech. At least you could give a modicum of respect for those that made the ultimate sacrifice.