Introduction
When British colonists came to America, they chose strategic locations they thought were fit to create a stronghold for them over the Native Americans. The British drove the natives out of land that they felt was more valuable and occupied it. The places they chose were either fertile land with many slaves flowing in, like the South near towns they wanted to develop, or near rivers with adequate water flow. The colonists thus kept moving from state to state, looking for the best place to establish their business, farming lands, and also connecting with the natives who controlled the profitability of established businesses. Geography hence dictated the type of income-generating activity that the colonists indulged in.
Main body
There was a vast difference between the colonies when it came to agriculture; different colonies had different crops and agricultural activities that they earned income from. In Virginia, the land there favored rice and tobacco, which were the main cash crops (Shi 118). Initially, rice was only profitable in South Carolina and not the Northern Colonies where the colonies wanted to expand to. Still, the colonists realized that the tropical climate in Virginia was supportive of the rice trade, plus there was plenty of water from rivers James and Appomattox. Rice farmers, therefore, initially preferred South Carolina but eventually moved to Virginia and Maryland when the discovery about tropical climate supporting rice farming and the availability of water was made.
The farms also required labor which was not adequate in most colonies. The Southern States, especially South Carolina, supported slavery which was a form of free labor for the family farms that the colonists owned. Living in the South for the colonists thus meant that they benefited from the free slave labor that was readily available. The colonists never had to spend on farm labor that Virginia used, such as indentured servants; they, therefore, had substantial profit margins from agricultural activities. The North England colonies in Virginia were hugely affected by this deficit in labor; for example, there were 100,000 slaves in West Indies while there were only 5000 slaves in North America (Shi 118). Most colonists, therefore, preferred where they would spend less on labor while maximizing profits.
The geographical location of the colonies also affected the trade activities of the colonies. From the English trade custom records recorded between 1698 and 1717, there is evidence that South Carolina and Chesapeake were favored as they mostly traded with England (Shi 126). This trade balance ensured that colonists maintained a good relationship with the Southern States because most of their revenue came from the South. In return, the Northern States became famous with other colonists since they resented the favoritism showed to the Southerners. Profitability and earnings thus depended on whether colonists inhabited the South, which had a good rapport with England through good trade relationships.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the best geographical location that strengthened the economy for the colonists was the South, which included West Indies and South Carolina. The first reason for this is that the South had a good relationship with England that bolstered trade between the colonists and the Native Americans; the Northern Colonies never had this good relationship. Secondly, the South supported the slavery of Africans, which led to free African labor being used in their family-owned farms. At the same time, the North had indentured servants supported by a few African slaves. Lastly, Agriculture was primarily kept in the fertile lands of the South before colonists realized that tropical climate could also support farming such as rice farming. Therefore, the Southern States had free labor, a good business environment, and had fertile land for agriculture. In contrast, even after taking note of the advantages, the North was not as profitable as the South.
Work Cited
Shi, David E. “Colonial Ways of Life.” America: A Narrative History, 11th ed., W. W. Norton, 2018, pp. 114-153.
Canto 26 Of Dante’s Paradiso: Dante’s Test And Reward
Canto 26 is designed like a test for Dante, which he successfully completes. At the start of the Canto, he is blinded by the sight of St. John. Dante is concerned about his eyesight, to which St John replies that Dante’s eyesight will return. However, then, St John proceeds to ask questions aimed at evaluating Dante’s purity of intention and strength of faith. He asks what is the destination of Dante’s soul, which is God. The next question is the inspiration for seeking God, which is philosophy. Finally, St. John inquiries about the strength of Dante’s love. Dante reaffirms his love for God, which is ultimately rewarded as Beatrice heals his eyesight.
Dante’s reward for passing St. John’s test is not limited to the return of eyesight. Dante also sees more clearly: “I saw better than I had before” (verse 69). It enables him to see and talk with the first man Adam. It is interesting to note that Dante does not speak at all during this conversation. Instead, Adam guesses correctly what Dante wants to ask of him and answers it himself. The questions include the amount of time since the creation, the amount of time spent in the Garden of Eden, the reason for God’s anger at Adam, and the language Adam used after the sin.
It seems that the entire narrative of this Cante is built around the test and the reward for passing the test. It is similar to many Christian values, where the faith in God is constantly tested, and the righteous ones are rewarded, while those who fail the test experience God’ anger. Adam serves as the juxtaposition to Dante – what would have happened to him if he had not answered St. John’s questions correctly. In a similar way, Adam himself failed God’s test when he intruded and ate the forbidden apple. Dante’s ability to see Adam and have his questions answered without having to ask them is Dante’s rewards for love and faith in God.
Self-Regulation And Risk Evaluation
In this video, McKenna, the audit consultant, and independent journalist focuses on two myths. The first myth refers to the assumption that shareholders damage corporations and the public. McKenna mentions professor Stoute and her book, where she states that there is no legal duty in corporate law for corporations to reduce taxes. In turn, the speaker claims that the key reason for that mistaken belief is the fact that many people perceive shareholders as the owners of businesses, while overall control over corporations is also attributed to shareholders. However, it is interesting that the claims of shareholders regarding any of the issues are often indirect.
To support her argument, the speaker uses a real-life example, where she notes Mr. Timken and the investors, who break up the Timken Steel company that existed for more than 110 years. The author of the article in the New York Times wrote that it was capitalism and the duty of investors to maximize profits that led to such results (Schwartz, 2014). According to McKenna, “it is not just true”. Furthermore, she leaves no explanations and moves the second case, mentioning Morgenson, who also stated that “shareholders own the companies”.
It is quite thought-provoking to watch how the speaker dispels the myths by just saying that they are not true, but she provides little evidence to support her claims. The journalists that are mentioned by McKenna, indeed, use myths in their articles. Also, the speaker argues that journalists often build their writing on the words of university professors, not the legal foundation (Iazzetti, 2021). This leads to the idea that readers should be more aware of the legal framework so evacuate the media sources and make relevant conclusions.
In turn, it is important to understand the point of journalists, who use such false statements. On the one hand, they may lack knowledge in the given field and provide incorrect claims by a mistake. On the other hand, they seem to allegedly use them in terms of achieving higher newsworthiness, meaning that they intentionally distort information to attract the attention of readers. The method of a sandwich looks like a perfect option for masking such news. The journalists first offer a true fact, mention something dubious or false, and complete with true claims. What is interesting, as argued by McKenna, they include uncertain information only in case if it is needed, preferring to avoid it, if possible.
Another myth that is discussed by the speaker is that the audit’s design is not expected to detect fraud. This belief is largely used by external auditors as an excuse when they face litigation. Such cases often happen when their clients report bankruptcy or are accused of fraud. Nevertheless, auditors are fully responsible for fraud. Indeed, it is a widespread expectation gap between what auditors would do as perceived by people and what they are actually responsible for.
To conclude, it should be pointed out that the speaker rationally claims that morality is not a subject of regulation, but behaviors can be and should be legislated. There is a need for policies and laws that would address these two myths. The emphasis should be put on self-regulation and risk evaluation, as McKenna stated. To conclude, this video promotes a greater understanding of how economic myths impact businesses and society.
References
Iazzetti, E. (2021). Baylor Journalism – McKenna [Video]. Web.
Schwartz, N. D. (2014). How Wall Street Bent Steel. The New York Times. Web.