International Involvement free essay sample

Most Americans in the mid-1800s were not interested in further territorial expansion. In fact, many Americans opposed any type of imperial rule as it went against America’s political policies and threatened to bring in people of different cultures and religions; something that American already had enough of. However, several European countries were quickly expanding into Africa and Asia, threatening United States’ access to global markets. This new threat, combined with a collective belief in Darwinism, sparked American interest in global expansion. America’s international involvement between 1890 and 1905 definitely affected global politics as the United States became increasingly concerned with the affairs of smaller, less stable countries as well as gaining a more assertive global presence. This new approach toward global politics forever changed America’s once indifferent attitude. The events following the American Revolution kept the United States occupied up until the mid-1800s. The United States was largely inactive in global politics as its leaders were more concerned with building the foundations of the country rather than expanding beyond the North American borders. We will write a custom essay sample on International Involvement or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The country’s economy grew with industrialization and by the 1890’s the United States had half of its petroleum sales overseas (Landsberry, 2010) . The United States and its economy became very dependent on foreign trade. Almost simultaneously, European powers began seizing territory in Africa and Asia. Despite America’s indifference towards any involvement in global politics, the rising power of these European countries was concerning. Darwinism, a belief in the survival of the fittest, prompted Americans to consider further expansion to prevent being shut out of global markets that supported the American economy. Others were convinced that much of the world was uncivilized and it was the United States’ duty to spread the Anglo-Saxon civilization. Some were strictly focused on national power and insisted that the United States’ global power was dependent upon a strong navy. Yet there were still some who maintained that the United States must respect the rights of other nations (Irvin, 2007). Carl Shurz, a  well-known politician, also held this peaceful perspective. He wrote, â€Å"In its dealings with other nations (the United States) should have scrupulous (careful) regard, not only for their rights, but also for their self-respect. With all its resources for war, it should be the great peace power of the world. It (America) should seek to influence mankind, not by heavy artillery, but by good example and wise counsel. It should see its highest glory, not in battles won, but in wars prevented. It should be so invariably (always) just and fair, so trustworthy that other nations would instinctively turn to it as the great preserver of the world’s peace† (Irvin, 2007). Nonetheless, the United Sates pursued imperialism in the Spanish-American War in 1898. The Spanish-American War was a conflict that President William McKinley wanted to avoid. Anti- Spanish propaganda instigated America’s interest in the war and pressure from the Democratic Party and several industrialists finally persuaded the president to engage in what eventually lead to the fall of the Spanish Empire. The war originally began as an American intervention of the Cuban War of Independence however tensions escalated quickly after the American battleship Maine mysteriously sank in the Havana harbor (Brinkley, 2012). The Treaty of Paris ended the war and gave the United States control of the Philippine islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico (Brinkley, 2012). The United States has already shifted the balance of power in their first confrontation beyond North American borders. Now in control of outside territories, the United States was faced with the responsibility of maintaining its new colonies. This proved to be very difficult in the Philippines, where rebellious groups of guerilla warriors waged war on American soldiers. The Philippine War went on for four years and caused thousands of causalities, both native and American alike. The rebels maintained that they had valid leader who would lead a stable government and they did not need help from Spain or the United States. The war ended in 1902 when the United States finally agreed to assist in the Philippines independence from colonial rule (Brinkley, 2012). â€Å"America did not attempt to expand its territories after the Philippine War as imperialism did not proved to be more dangerous than it was lucrative†Ã‚  (Landsberry, 2010) . Instead, its leaders decided to expand the country’s power and by increasing its influence over foreign nations. President Roosevelt was very interested in international involvement. His affairs became known as the ‘Big Stick Policy’ (Irvin, 2007). The name came from his famous quote â€Å"I have always been fond of the West African proverb: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far† (Irvin, 2007). This attitude was one of quiet assertiveness. President Roosevelt, like Carl Shurz, believed that it was the United States’ duty to set a good example for the rest of the world. He took it a step further by insisting that Americans intervene in the affairs of other countries that were too weak or unstable to protect themselves. He focused on countries located on the Western Hemisphere in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine; a document forged by President Monroe that assured the European countries of the United States’ dominance over the Western Hemisphere. President Roosevelt’s promise to protect weaker nations is known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (Irvin, 2007) . Although the United States may have not been entirely successful at imperialism, it did make its mark on global politics. It disabled the Spanish Empire and changed the American reputation from indifferent and isolated to assertive and strong. President Roosevelt reiterated the Monroe Doctrine, making the world aware of the United States’ presence in foreign affairs. In the short time from 1890 to 1905, the United States of America transformed its identity in preparation for the war ahead.

10 Ways to Reduce College Stress

10 Ways to Reduce College Stress At any given point in time, most college students are stressed about something; its just part of going to school. While having stress in your life is normal and often unavoidable, being stressed is something you can control. Follow these ten tips to learn how to keep your stress in check and how to relax when it gets to be too much. 1. Dont Stress About Being Stressed This may seem ridiculous at first, but it is listed first for a reason: when youre feeling stressed, you feel like youre on edge and everything is barely being held together. Dont beat yourself up too badly about it! Its all normal, and the best way to handle stress is to not get more stressed about...being stressed. If youre stressed out, admit it and figure out how to handle it. Focusing on it, especially without taking action, will only make things seem worse. 2. Get Some Sleep Being in college means your sleep schedule is, most likely, far from ideal. Getting more sleep can help your mind refocus, recharge, and re-balance. This can mean a quick nap, a night when you go to bed early, or a promise to yourself to stick with a regular sleep schedule. Sometimes, one good nights sleep can be all you need to hit the ground running amidst a stressful time. 3. Get Some (Healthy!) Food Similar to your sleep habits, your eating habits may have gone by the wayside when you started school. Think about what- and when- youve eaten over the past few days. You may think your stress is psychological, but you could also be feeling physical stress (and putting on the Freshman 15) if youre not fueling your body appropriately. Go eat something balanced and healthy: fruits and veggies, whole grains, protein. Make your mama proud with what you choose for dinner tonight! 4.  Get Some Exercise You may think that if you dont have the time to sleep and eat properly, you definitely dont have the time to exercise. Fair enough, but if youre feeling stressed, it may be that you need to squeeze it in somehow. Exercise doesnt necessarily have to involve a 2-hour, exhausting workout at the campus gym. It can mean a relaxing, 30-minute walk while listening to your favorite music. In fact, in a little over an hour, you can 1) walk 15 minutes to your favorite off-campus restaurant, 2) eat a quick and healthy meal, 3) walk back, and 4) take a power nap. Imagine how much better youll feel! 5. Get Some Quiet Time Take one moment and think: when was the last time you had some quality, quiet time alone? Personal space for students in college rarely exists. You may share your room, your bathroom, your classrooms, your dining hall, the gym, the bookstore, the library, and anywhere else you go during an average day. Finding a few moments of peace and quiet- with no cell phone, roommates, or crowds- might be just what you need. Stepping out from the crazy college environment for a few minutes can do wonders for reducing your stress. 6.  Get Some Social Time Have you been working on that English paper for three days straight? Can you even see what youre writing anymore for your chemistry lab? You could be stressed because youre being too focused on getting things done. Dont forget that your brain is like a muscle, and even it needs a break every once in a while! Take a break and see a movie. Grab some friends and go out dancing. Hop a bus and hang out downtown for a few hours. Having a social life is an important part of your college experience, so dont be afraid to keep it in the picture when youre stressed. It could be when you need it most! 7. Make Work More  Fun You may be stressed about one particular thing: a final paper due Monday, a class presentation due Thursday. You basically just need to sit down and plow through it. If this is the case, try to figure out how to make it a little more fun and enjoyable. Is everyone writing final papers? Agree to work together in your room for 2 hours and then order pizza together for dinner. Do a lot of your classmates have huge presentations to put together? See if you can reserve a classroom or room in the library where you can all work together and share supplies. You may just lower everyones stress level. 8. Get Some Distance You may be handling your own problems and trying to help others around you. While this can be nice for them, check in and be honest with yourself about how your helpful demeanor may be causing more stress in your life. Its okay to take a step back and focus on yourself for a little while, especially if you are stressed and your academics are at risk. After all, how can you keep helping others if youre not even in a state to help yourself? Figure out which things are causing you the most stress and how you can take a step back from each. And then, most importantly, take that step. 9. Get a Little Help It can be hard to ask for help, and unless your friends are psychic, they may not know how stressed out you are. Most college students are going through the same things at the same thing, so dont feel silly if you need to just vent for 30 minutes over coffee with a friend. It may help you process out what you need to do, and help you realize that the things you are so stressed about are actually pretty manageable. If youre afraid of dumping too much on a friend, most colleges have counseling centers specifically for their students. Dont be afraid to make an appointment if you think it will help. 10. Get Some Perspective College life can be overwhelming. You want to hang out with your friends, join clubs, explore off campus, join a fraternity or sorority, and be involved in the campus newspaper. It can sometimes feel like there arent enough hours in the day. Thats because there arent. Theres only so much any person can handle, and you need to remember the reason why youre in school: academics. No matter how exciting your co-curricular life can be, you wont be able to enjoy any of it if you dont pass your classes. Make sure to keep your eye on the prize and then head out and change the world!

John Deere Invented a Better Plow

John Deere Invented a Better Plow John Deere was an Illinois blacksmith and manufacturer. Early in his career, Deere and an associate designed a series of farm plows. In 1837, on his own, John Deere designed the first cast steel plow that greatly assisted the Great Plains farmers. The large plows made for cutting the tough prairie ground were called grasshopper plows. The plow was made of wrought iron and had a steel share that could cut through sticky soil without clogging. By 1855, John Deeres factory was selling over 10,000 steel plows a year. In 1868, John Deeres business was incorporated as Deere Company, which is still in existence today. John Deere became a millionaire selling his steel plows. History of Plows The first real inventor of a practicable plow was Charles Newbold, of Burlington County, New Jersey, to whom a patent for a cast-iron plow was issued in June 1797. But the farmers would have none of it. They said it poisoned the soil and fostered the growth of weeds. One David Peacock received a patent in 1807, and two others later. Newbold sued Peacock for infringement and recovered damages. Pieces of Newbolds original plow are in the museum of the New York Agricultural Society at Albany. Another inventor of plows was Jethro Wood, a blacksmith of Scipio, New York, who received two patents, one in 1814 and the other in 1819. His plow was of cast iron, but in three parts, so that a broken part might be renewed without purchasing an entire plow. This principle of standardization marked a great advance. The farmers by this time were forgetting their former prejudices, and many plows were sold. Though Woods original patent was extended, infringements were frequent, and he is said to have spent his entire property in prosecuting them. Another skilled blacksmith, William Parlin, at Canton, Illinois, began in about 1842 making plows that he loaded upon a wagon and peddled through the country. Later his establishment grew large. Another John Lane, a son of the first, patented in 1868 a soft-center steel plow. The hard but brittle surface was backed by softer and more tenacious metal, to reduce the breakage. The same year James Oliver, a Scotch immigrant who had settled at South Bend, Indiana, received a patent for the chilled plough. By an ingenious method, the wearing surfaces of the casting were cooled more quickly than the back. The surfaces which came in contact with the soil had a hard, glassy surface, while the body of the plow was of tough iron. From small beginnings, Olivers establishment grew great, and the Oliver Chilled Plow Works at South Bend is today [1921] one of the largest and most favorably known privately owned. From the single plowit was only a step to two or more plows fastened together, doing more work with approximately the same manpower. The sulky plow, on which the plowman rode, made his work easier, and gave him great control. Such plows were certainly in use as early as 1844, perhaps earlier. The next step forward was to substitute for horses a traction engine.

The Rising Economic Importance of Women Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 8000 words

The Rising Economic Importance of Women - Essay Example rmination model with three component parts: the individual-level segment, which includes variables such as education and age; the structural-level segment, which includes variables such as hours worked per week, industry, and occupation; a gender-level segment, which includes variables such as sex, marital status, and with child under age six. Results indicate that, net of other factors, women earn $111.21 less per week than men in spite of having a higher percentage of college degrees and positions in white-collar high-skill employment. Analysis of the results suggests that there are two potential means by which the pay-gap can be reduced. Women are typically, either by choice or because they are forced, selected into gender homogenous positions such as education or healthcare that are devalued. Women therefore need to select positions that will generate a more heterogeneous employment structure and pursue occupations in typically male dominated areas. Additionally, the enactment of a Pay Equity Act could further restore the balance and redistribute income by evaluating positions based on the value of their work and not based on sex, race, or other personal/individual attributes. Four decades have passed since the enactment of the Equal Pay Act (1963), but are we any closer to gender equality? The Equal Pay Act was created as a result of the large income discrepancies that existed for individuals doing the same work and was termed pay discrimination. Throughout the years many justifications have been put forth for unequal pay based on gender with the predominant being the sex difference in productivity. Sex segregation, the division of labor based on gender, has existed from almost the beginning and is arguably one of the most profound reasons why the pay-gap still exists today. The Equal Pay Act has done little to address this issue because it only addresses gender income differences for those individuals occupying the same positions. Another justification for

Business Ethics Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

Business Ethics - Research Paper Example But the problem apparently is far from resolved taking into consideration the actual degradation of the environment and changing weather patterns. This paper is a personal view on the above mentioned balance, ‘the spectrum of ethical responsibly towards the environment’. The stand taken is that environmental ethics is a necessity both on paper and in practice for business organizations. But the responsibility should not be solely on the major contributor namely the big polluters. An ideal or at the least a sustainable climate is vital to the survival of all living organisms including humans (Pittock, 1). The matter is of utmost concern is the reality of climate change. It is a well established fact that pollution of air, land and water have contributed to this alarming situation. As mentioned in the introduction, economic (immediate) needs often take precedence of long-term requirements regarding the survival of the human race in particular and the environment in general. It is to be seen as to who contributes negatively and positively towards global warming and its long-term effects and causes. According to Ray Anderson, one of the most respected industrialists committed towards environmental ethics, it is business and industry that are the main culprits in this whole chain of events. Being so, this group can in turn become the major contributors in correcting this alarming situation. He goes on to add that there should be an individual or organization that leads the way and took up the responsibility (successfully) of showcasing his own carpet company Interface as a global example of how business can on their own be path breakers in this regard. What is most admirable is the fact that Interface is a company that uses fossil fuels as a raw material for its products. No one in their right mind would publicly state that they have no responsibility towards the environment. But it is

300 - Rationalism vs Empiricism - Summary and History Essay Example for Free

300 Rationalism vs Empiricism Summary and History Essay What is reality really like? A current running through much of the philosophical thinking around the time of Socrates and Plato was that there is a difference between how the world appears and how it is. Our senses reveal one layer of reality but it is our minds that penetrate deeper. The world of appearances is a world in flux but underneath there must be a stable reality. For there is much that is unchanging. We recognise kinds of things – badgers, daffodils, mountains – and whilst members of these kinds are born, change and die, and differ from one another in ever so many ways, the kind-defining essence doesnt change. We see here the key rationalist idea that knowledge is a priori knowledge of necessary truths Plato said that kinds were defined by the transcendental forms. He presented a number of arguments for the existence of these things. Prior to our incarnation, our souls existed in the realm of forms where we learned about these essences. In our terrestrial state, we cannot recall what we know. Socrates considered himself a midwife to knowledge instead of a teacher, helping his interlocutors to draw out what they dont know that they know. The example of Meno and the slave-boy shows this idea clearly. Like many philosophers, Plato was also fascinated by mathematics. We are able to tap into a universe of truths that are non-sensible: we do not see numbers and we do not see the perfect geometric forms. Once again, we see the difference between the powers of the mind and the powers of the senses. It was in the 17th century that the debate between the rationalists and the empiricists came to a head. Philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz emphasised the power of reason over the senses. Descartes argued that our senses were fallible and that we could not rule out the possibility of the demon deception hypothesis on the basis of sensory evidence alone. Descartes argued that he knew he existed, as a mind, on the basis of reflection alone: when I think, I cannot fail to be aware of myself as existing as that thinker (cogito, ergo sum). Having proved that he exists, Descartes argued that God exists. Since God is no deceiver, he would not have given us senses that systematically mislead. But let us not overemphasise the powers of the senses. Descartes argued that even with material things, it is reason that exposes their essences. In his piece of wax reasoning, he argued that the senses merely reveal a succession of impressions: it is reason that grasps the underlying and enduring substance as extended (and filled space). Plato and Descartes believed that we are born with concepts and knowledge. In Descartes case, there was a religious motive: we are all born in the image of God. We discover more about the world primarily through metaphysical reflection. The philosopher Francis Bacon, an early empiricist, famously dismissed this rationalist approach to knowledge. He compared rationalists to spiders who spin complex metaphysical systems out of their entrails. Empiricists get their hands dirty: like bees gathering pollen, they gather knowledge about the world and only then reflect on it. Around the same time as Bacon, many new discoveries were being made that shook the prevailing views of reality. The Earth was dethroned from its position at the centre of the universe by Copernicus. A new star (a supernova) was observed by Tycho Brahe in 1572 – yet the heavens were supposed to be timeless and unchanging. Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter – again, everything clearly didnt revolve around the Earth. Later in the 17th century, scientist-philosophers such as Newton, Boyle, Gassendi and Huygens would revolutionise our understanding of reality. The original empiricist manifesto was written by John Locke. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he sought to show how a mind that was blank at birth – a tabula rasa or blank slate – could come to be filled. His first targets were the innate concepts and knowledge (ideas) of the rationalists. There are no such things. There are no truths everyone agrees on. Many people fail to grasp the supposed metaphysical truths. Instead, our senses deliver ideas to us. We store them, abstract from them to form general ideas, and compound and mix them to generate new ideas. Like Lego bricks, we build the meagre sensory data into ever more complex structures. Even Leibniz thought Locke was onto something here. He claimed that our minds were like blocks of marble that had to be carefully chiselled at to reveal the hidden structure (the innate truths). It is hard work and not everyone will end up well-chiselled. Hume took empiricism to its limit. Where Locke talked indifferently of ideas, Hume distinguished impressions and ideas. Impressions are the direct deliverances of the senses and are forceful and vivid in comparison to ideas, which are the copies our minds makes. (He also agreed with the Empiricist Berkeley that Lockes theory of general ideas was wrong. We do not abstract from particular ideas to a general idea but use a particular idea in a general way via a general name. ) What about the precious necessary truths philosophy is supposed to study? Locke argued that once we have ideas in our mind, our mind will perceive the necessary connections between them – e. g. that a triangle has internal angles that add to 180o? But where does the idea of necessity come from? Hume provided an answer. He distinguished statements into two categories: those expressing relations of ideas (analytic) and those expressing matters of fact (synthetic). The analytic truths express mere definitions: we simply are aware of an association between terms. The synthetic truths are the contingent truths. So what happens to interesting necessary truths, such as God exists or nothing exists without being caused to exist? Hume argued that if these werent analytic – and they arent – they arent necessary. We feel that they are necessary and this is all necessity is: a psychological property. When we say that X caused Y, we think we have said something about the universe. We think we have seen an example of a law of nature (e. g. the water in the bucket froze because it was cold exemplifies the law water freezes at 0oC). Science investigates these laws. Hume said that causation was all in the mind. We see one thing after another and when weve seen instances of a regularity enough, we develop the feeling that one thing must be followed by the other. Hume, like Locke, emphasised how all we can be certain of are our impressions – how the world seems. Scientists are really investigating how the world appears: they can never be certain that the world really is the way it appears. So, empiricism seems to lead straight to scepticism about the external world. Kant objected strongly to this. Science really is studying the external world and there really is an external world for it to investigate. Kant brought about a revolution in philosophy (he called it a Copernican revolution). He argued that the empiricists and rationalists were both right and wrong. The Empiricists were right: science requires the study of the world and the world is brought to us via the senses. The Rationalists were right: our mind is not blank but contains structures that enable us to interpret the stream of data from the senses. We may liken the mind to a mould and the data to jelly: one only has something structured by combining both. Or: the mind is a computer with an operating system and the data is the input from the user. A computer with just an operating system is inert. A computer into which data is inputted but which has no operating system is just data: it cannot be interpreted. Only when you combine both do you get something useful. Our minds contain the structures for space, time, objects and causation, for example. (In Kants terminology, space and time are the pure forms of intuition whereas the structures for objects and causation are pure concepts of the understanding. ) This means that we experience a world of spatio-temporally located objects in which causation happens because this is how our minds make it appear. Does this mean that the world as such is all in the mind? Or is the mind somehow tuned to the structure of reality, so that our pre-programmed minds mirror the structures of reality? This is a very difficult question over which there is no agreement amongst experts. The Empiricist movement came back with a vengeance in the 20th century. Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell agreed with Hume that our knowledge begins with our knowledge of sense-data (classical empirical foundationalism). Armed with new discoveries in mathematics and logic, and backed by the successes of science, the logical positivists argued that the only proper way to investigate the world was the scientific way. If I say p and p is synthetic and there is no objective, scientific way to verify my claim that p, then my claim is meaningless. (This is the celebrated verification principle). So, if it is true that there atoms, we should be able to find empirical – sensory – evidence of them. If it is true that nothing happens without being caused to happen, then we likewise need scientific evidence for this. We cannot discover whether it is true by pure reason. The Logical Positivist movement failed. There is much that seems meaningful that is not objectively verifiable by the senses, such as the occurrence of private sensations. The principle makes it impossible for general claims such as all mammals are warm-blooded to be true, as we cannot verify all of them. The very verification principle itself fails its own test! The Logical Positivists responded by watering down their principle: a meaningful claim is one we could gather some evidence for in principle and the principle itself is special – exempt from this rule. But it was not enough. (* Then Quine argued that the fundamental division between analytic and synthetic sentences was incorrect. Analytic sentences cannot be false. But no sentence enjoys this privilege. As we learn more and more, truths we thought were beyond doubt are rejected. Once upon a time, we would have thought it analytic that no object can be in two places at once or that there is no fastest velocity. Quantum physics and general relativity theory show that they are not true. Instead, we should have a web of belief. At the centre are those sentences least likely to be revised – our core beliefs. As we move out, we find those sentences that would be easier and easier to accept as false – that would cause less and less disruption to the rest of what we believe. ) In the 1950s, Chomsky became famous for suggesting that we are not born as blank slates when it comes to language. We are born knowing the fundamental structures of human language. When we are young, we hear our mother tongue and use our knowledge of language to pick up our language very quickly. (At 24 months, the average child understands 500-700 words; at 36 months, 1000; at 48 around 2500-3000; at 60 around 5000 words: thats around 7 words a day between 3 and 6). More recently, studies have shown that children are born with brains structured to expect the world to behave in certain way. Very young children expect objects to persist over time: not to disappear and reappear at two different places, for example. Is this a revival of rationalism? Not according to many people. Rationalists argued that we had innate concepts and knowledge. By reflection, we can discover them and manipulate them to gain new knowledge. But our knowledge of language is altogether different. None of us can easily articulate the rules we follow in generating syntactically-correct English. (And certainly none of us at all can articulate the common structure rules to all human languages. ) Our brains are certainly pre-programmed, but only perhaps in the same way that a computer is pre-wired: clearly something has to be there but nothing as advanced as software. So where are we today? No side is victorious: this would be to grossly over-simplify the debate between the empiricists and the rationalists. We definitely have minds in some way ready to receive the world – hardly surprising, perhaps, given the time it has taken for us to evolve. But when it comes to working out what is true? Few philosophers are rationalists in the old-fashioned way. There is no sharp division between metaphysics and science: our study of reality cannot be done from the armchair alone. But our capacity to grasp abstract mathematical truths has always been difficult to explain from an empiricist perspective. We seem to have an access to a mathematical realm and a cognitive or intuitive access instead of a sensory one. You cant see numbers, after all, and it is not easy to say what we could see that would lead us to generate the ideas of numbers.

Societial Changes in the Middle East in 600 B.C.E. :: Politics, world history, Mesopotamia

From the time of the Agricultural revolution till 600 B.C.E, many changes were being made in society. New tools and weapons were developed, new types of writing, and new art forms were all being discovered and altered. But one societal element that is crucial to everyone is politics. The politics of a society effect the citizens day to day lives, and set boundries for all people. Between the time of the Agricultural Revolution and 600 B.C.E, the Middle East experienced political changes such as; the dimensions of government, and the land that was conquered and controlled. The one thing during this time that did remain unchanged, for the most part, were the political leaders of the time period. In Mesopotamia priests were held to a high standard and had a lot of political and economical involvement. As the city-states in Mesopotamia advanced so did the interaction with different empires. Also as the involvement grew so did the civilians quality of life, even for the slaves. Eventually Mesopotamia split up into a north and south region. The region split up due to political and economic reasons. The North was ruled by the Assyria and the south was ruled by Hammurabi. The heightened economic time continued, but it was short lived after the conflict in Anatolia in 1200 B.C.E. the Mesopotamia economy collapsed and they then had a time of poverty and struggle. Assyrian rule lasted from 911 to 612 B.C.E in the northern Mesopotamia region. It is considered by most historians as the first empire. The expansion of Assyrian took place along major trade routes which gave them a stable economy. As the expansion continued policies were put in place to support and benefit the upper classes of society. Later the empire began to diminish because of the hatred it received from its conquered people, and the empires population became less and less loyal to its rulers. During 2000 B.C.E the Israelites populates an area located at cross roads of trade routes. Their petite population inhabited a diminutive territory that was deprived of natural resources, but they were nestled at a cross road of trade routes which was very beneficial for their economy.