Article Worksheet – Crisis and Catastrophe: The Global Crisis of the Seventeenth Century Reconsidered

1. The main argument of the article is:

The main argument of the Parker (2008) article is that the mid-seventeenth century was a period of unprecedented global crisis, characterized by widespread state breakdown, popular revolts, wars, famines, epidemics, and social unrest (p. 1053). The article suggests that one of the main causes of this crisis was a series of climatic shocks that disrupted agricultural production and trade, leading to food shortages, inflation, and poverty (p. 1053). The article also explores how different regions and societies responded to the crisis by adapting, reforming, or collapsing. The article concludes that the global crisis of the seventeenth century was a turning point in world history that reshaped the balance of power and the patterns of development for centuries to come.

The crisis affected Africa differently, depending on the region and the context. In North Africa, the Ottoman Empire faced rebellions, droughts, famines, and plagues that weakened its control and legitimacy. In West Africa, the Atlantic slave trade increased as European demand for labor rose, and African states competed for resources and power (p. 1054). Some states, such as Dahomey and Asante, expanded and consolidated their territories, while others, such as Oyo and Kongo, suffered from internal conflicts and external pressures. The crisis had less impact in East Africa, as trade with India and the Middle East continued, and some states, such as Ethiopia and Buganda, maintained their stability and autonomy (p, 1055). However, some regions, such as Somalia and Sudan, experienced environmental stress and social unrest. In Southern Africa, the crisis coincided with the expansion of the Zulu kingdom and the migration of other groups, such as the Nguni and the Sotho. These movements disrupted the existing patterns of trade and settlement and led to conflicts and alliances among various communities.

2. The most important information in the article is:

The mid-seventeenth century was a global crisis that involved widespread state breakdown, popular revolts, wars, famines, epidemics, and social unrest. One of the main causes of the crisis was a series of climatic shocks that disrupted agricultural production and trade, leading to food shortages, inflation, and poverty (pp. 1050). Different regions and societies responded to the crisis differently, either by adapting, reforming, or collapsing. The global crisis of the seventeenth century was a turning point in world history that reshaped the balance of power and development patterns for centuries to come (pp. 1075).

The climatic shocks affected different regions, depending on their geography, ecology, economy, and society. The seventeenth century was generally marked by a series of volcanic eruptions that lowered global temperatures and disrupted weather patterns (p. 1056). This caused colder winters, shorter growing seasons, more frequent storms, floods, and droughts, and reduced crop yields and livestock numbers. Some regions were more vulnerable than others to these changes. For example, in Europe, the northern and eastern regions suffered more from cold and wet conditions than the southern and western regions. In Asia, the monsoon regions experienced more variability and unpredictability than the temperate regions. In Africa, the Sahel and the Horn of Africa faced more severe droughts than the equatorial and coastal regions. The climatic shocks also had different impacts on different sectors of society (p. 1057). For example, environmental stress affected farmers, fishermen, and pastoralists more directly than merchants, artisans, and officials. The poor and the marginalized were more likely to suffer from food insecurity, malnutrition, disease, and displacement than the rich and the powerful. The climatic shocks also influenced the political and military dynamics of different regions. For example, in Europe, the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) was partly fueled by religious tensions but also by economic grievances and environmental pressures. In China, the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) collapsed partly because of peasant rebellions triggered by famine, taxation, and corruption. In Japan, the Tokugawa shogunate (1603-1868) consolidated its power partly by implementing effective policies to cope with climatic variability and social unrest (p. 1060).

3. The key concept(s) we need to understand in the article are:

The global crisis of the seventeenth century: was a period of widespread state breakdown, popular revolts, wars, famines, epidemics, and social unrest that affected many regions of the world in the mid-seventeenth century. The climatic shocks of the seventeenth century: a series of volcanic eruptions that lowered global temperatures and disrupted weather patterns, causing environmental stress and agricultural decline in many regions of the world in the seventeenth century (pp. 1061). The responses to the crisis: the different ways different regions and societies adapted, reformed, or collapsed in the face of the crisis, and how these responses shaped the long-term outcomes and trajectories of world history.

These concepts relate to each other in the following ways:

The climatic shocks of the seventeenth century were one of the main causes of the global crisis of the seventeenth century. They created environmental stress and agricultural decline that undermined the livelihoods and well-being of many people and increased the vulnerability and instability of many states and societies (p. 1057). The global crisis of the seventeenth century was also influenced by other factors, such as political, economic, social, religious, and cultural conflicts and changes occurring in different regions of the world (pp. 1063). These factors interacted with the climatic shocks in complex and contingent ways, sometimes exacerbating and sometimes mitigating their effects.

The responses to the crisis were diverse and varied, depending on the region, society, sector, and group involved. Some responses were proactive and adaptive, such as developing new technologies, institutions, policies, or practices to cope with environmental and social challenges. Some responses were reactive and reformist, such as revolting against oppressive or ineffective authorities, negotiating new alliances or settlements, or embracing new ideologies or movements (pp. 1074). Some responses were passive or fatalistic, such as accepting or enduring hardships, migrating or fleeing from troubles, or seeking divine intervention or salvation. Moreover, the responses to the crisis had significant and lasting consequences for world history. They shaped the balance of power and the development patterns among different regions and societies. They also influenced the cultural and intellectual trends and innovations that emerged after the crisis (pp.1077). They also affected different regions’ and societies’ ecological and environmental conditions and legacies.

4. What, if any, questions do you have about this article? Do you need more information? Is part of the argument unclear? Is there something the authors have not considered? What would you ask the author(s) if you spoke with him/her/them?

• How did the author(s) measure and compare climatic shocks and crises across different regions and periods? What sources and methods did they use?
• How did the author(s) account for the role of human agency and contingency in shaping the responses to the crisis? How did they avoid deterministic or teleological explanations?
• How did the author(s) address the limitations and challenges of synthesizing and interpreting such a vast and diverse body of historical evidence and literature?

The article is clear and comprehensive, but I would like to know more about some aspects of the argument. For example, I would like to know more about how the author(s) defined and identified the global crisis of the seventeenth century. How did they determine the crisis’s scope, scale, and intensity? How did they compare and contrast different regions and societies regarding their experiences and outcomes of the crisis? How did they deal with the diversity and complexity of the historical evidence and literature on the topic?

I would also like to know more about how the author(s) evaluated and explained the responses to the crisis. How did they assess the effectiveness and sustainability of different responses? How did they account for the interactions and feedbacks between different responses? How did they identify and analyze the factors that influenced the choices and actions of different actors and groups in responding to the crisis? If I spoke with the author(s), I would ask them these questions, as well as how they became interested in this topic and what challenges they faced in conducting this research. I would also ask them how they hope their study will contribute to the historical understanding and public awareness of the relationship between climate change and global crisis.

References

Parker, G. (2008). Crisis and catastrophe: The global crisis of the seventeenth century reconsidered. The American Historical Review, 113(4), 1053-1079.

The Climatic Context (p. 1056) The Global Crisis (pp. 1060-1072) Responses to Crisis (pp. 1072-1077) Conclusion (p. 1077)