Based on the documents, the Hand and the Roman had varying attitudes towards tech-nology. On one hand, Han China had a universally positive view of the benefits of tech-nology. On the other hand, Rome had a more divided view towards technology - some Romans supported it. Other Romans rejected and shunned it. On one hand, Han China had a universally positive view of the benefits of technology. The Han government established water conservation guidelines concerning people for flood prevention. (Doc 1) Given that the Han requested experienced people for flood prevention technology shows their concern and attentiveness to and for technology. century earlier, a Han government official, Huan Guan, wrote the government criticizing the crudeness of government-controlled technology while praising the prowess of those handmade by workers for personal use. (Doc 2) Given the officials’ concern for the tool quality’s impact on the salt and iron trade shows the importance of technology to the economy of China. In the later Han era (20 C.E.), Huan Tan, an upper-class Han philo-sopher, favorably recorded the clever improvements on the pestle and mortar, which “in-
Presentation on theme: "DBQ Debrief: Attitudes Toward Technology in Rome and Han China"— Presentation transcript:
1 DBQ Debrief: Attitudes Toward Technology in Rome and Han China
ES: Demonstrate an understanding of concepts
2 Has Acceptable Thesis-1 Core Point
Thesis needed to address one specific attitude toward tech. in Rome and one specific attitude toward tech. in Han China.Should have been essay intro. ParagraphBackground info (1-2 sentences)Thesis Statement (1-3 sentences)Essay Map (explanation of groupings) (can list documents in parenthesis)
3 Unacceptable Theses“Although the Han and Roman attitudes toward technology are different in some ways, they are also alike.”“The Roman upper class admired technological innovation, but the Han upper class looked down on those who created technology.”
4 C) “Han China and Rome had both positive and negative attitudes toward technology.”
D) “Both the Han Chinese and Romans had positive attitudes toward technology.”
5 Acceptable Thesis“Throughout China there was a majority appreciation of technological advancement with a few against it, while in the Roman empire, the view was split between support and pessimism.”
6 Excellent Thesis“Han China’s attitude toward manufacturing and labor was more open and positive than the Roman upper class’s disdain for labor. The Romans had a more class-divided society, causing general attitudes of labor and technology to be low.”
7 Understands the Basic Meaning of the Documents-1 Core Point
Had to address all 8 documents.Could misinterpret no more than 1.Documents must each be addressed individually.Listing, attributing, quoting, etc. does not demonstrate understanding.
8 Unacceptable“Huan Guan (Doc. 2) clearly blames technology for making the peasants so poor that “now they have no choice but to till the soil with wooden plows and cannot afford salt to season their food.”
9 Acceptable“In Han China, technology was an essential part of the empire and required government intervention. (Doc. 1)”“In Rome, technology had a practical side, but its appearance was important as well (Doc. 6)”“The production of technology in Rome took a clever mind, but was not considered “enlightened” by the Roman upper class. (Doc. 8)”
10 Excellent“In Han China, technology was considered a gift from enlightened leadership, reflecting Confucian benevolence and harmony. (Doc 4)”
11 Supports Thesis with Appropriate Evidence from the Documents- 2 Core Points
Two Core Points: Supports thesis with evidence from all 8 documents.One Core Point: Supports thesis with evidence from 7 documents.
12 Unacceptable“Document 2 says that the government has monopolized the tool-making industry, but has done so in an inferior way, resulting in useless, crude, brittle tools.”
13 Acceptable“Huan Guan (Doc. 2) embodies the Han view that technology is good, as long as the government uses technology to benefit the people. Crude or brittle tools are of no help, and reflect poorly on the government.”
14 Analyzes Point of View in at Least Two Documents-1 Core Point
Explains why an individual person, organization, etc., might have had a particular opinion.Must move beyond a mere description of the individual or organization.
15 Unacceptable“The source, though, was a Greek-born Roman citizen, so it is questionable exactly how reliable the source is.”“Huan Tan was an upper class philosopher who had the point of view that the invention of the pestle and the mortar was made by the great and mythological emperor.”
16 Acceptable“This is interesting, because although one would expect a Han government official to praise the current government and its decisions, he is opposed to what the government is doing and is showing concern for the poor peasants.”
17 “The writer (Doc. 4) could have possibly been trying to please the emperor in order to obtain or maintain a higher ranking office.”
18 Analyzes documents by grouping them in two or three ways depending on the question-1 Core Point
Documents must be grouped in three ways.-Author?-Subject matter?-POV?
19 Unacceptable“Documents 1-4 are all from Han China, while documents 5-8 are all from Rome.”“Documents 1,2 and 4-8 are all written by gov’t officials.”“Document 5 reflects a Roman upper class attitude. Document 7 also reflects an upper class attitude typical of Rome.”
20 Acceptable“Roman government officials’ (Docs 5 and 7) attitude toward technology was consistently colored by their attitudes toward the ‘vulgar’ or ‘not elevated’ people that used that technology.”
21 Identifies and explains the need for one type of appropriate additional document or source-1 Core PointIdentifies and explains the need for one type of appropriate additional document or source
22 Unacceptable “It would be good to have a document from a peasant.”
“None of these documents represent a woman’s perspective.”
23 Acceptable“Docs 5 and 7 reflect only the opinion of the upper class. An additional document explaining the view of a craftsman would provide a balance of opinions.”“After seeing the opinions of high government officials and upper class philosophers who didn’t use technology, it is clear that the opinion of a common worker or civilian who actually used technology would be helpful.”