Between about 1700 and 1850, most parts of the world sought to limit contact with Europeans. Looking at the following locations, indicate where in your judgment that policy was most effective…and where it was least effective. Explain your reasoning.

- Ottoman Empire
- India
- China
- Africa
- Japan
- North America

ADD ANSWER
+10 PTS

1 answer

The policy of limiting contact with Europeans was most effective in Japan and least effective in North America.

Japan, under the rule of the Tokugawa shogunate, implemented a policy of sakoku (closed country) in the 17th century, which restricted trade and contact with Europeans and other foreigners. The policy was highly effective in maintaining Japan's isolation from the outside world until the arrival of American Commodore Matthew Perry in 1853. This allowed Japan to preserve its culture and traditions, leading to a strong sense of national identity and modernization during the Meiji Restoration of the late 19th century.

On the other hand, North America, particularly the United States, was unable to effectively limit contact with Europeans due to colonization, expansion, and trade. European powers established colonies and trading posts throughout the continent, leading to conflicts and the eventual displacement and subjugation of indigenous peoples. Despite efforts to restrict European influence, such as the Proclamation of 1763 and the Indian Removal Act of 1830, European contact significantly impacted the continent's history and development.

In the cases of the Ottoman Empire, India, China, and Africa, the effectiveness of limiting contact with Europeans varied. The Ottoman Empire was able to limit European influence to some extent through diplomatic and military efforts, but ultimately suffered territorial losses and decline. India and China were both subject to European colonization and trade, although both had periods of isolation and resistance. Africa, with its vast and diverse geography, experienced a mix of European colonization, trade, and resistance from different regions and groups.
Similar Questions
  1. Why did socialists split after World War I?(1 point)Responses Some sought to expand the role of government in society, while
    1. answers icon 7 answers
  2. Why did socialists split after World War 1? (1 point)A.Some sought to expand the role of government in society, while others
    1. answers icon 1 answer
  3. Why did socialists split after World War I? (1 point)O Some hoped to forge political alliances with fascists, while others did
    1. answers icon 1 answer
  4. Why did socialists split after World War I? (1 point)Some sought to expand the role of government in society, while others
    1. answers icon 1 answer
more similar questions