DBQ Debrief: Attitudes Toward Technology in Rome and Han China

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. Paragraph
• Background 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 Chinas attitude toward manufacturing and
  labor was more open and positive than the Roman
  upper classs 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

1. In Han China, technology was an essential part
   of the empire and required government
   intervention. (Doc. 1)
2. In Rome, technology had a practical side, but
   its appearance was important as well (Doc. 6)
3. 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

1. Documents 1-4 are all from Han China, while
   documents 5-8 are all from Rome.
2. Documents 1,2 and 4-8 are all written by govt
   officials.
3. 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
Point

• Identifies and explains the need for one type of
  appropriate additional document or source

22
Unacceptable

1. It would be good to have a document from a
   peasant.
2. None of these documents represent a womans
   perspective.

23
Acceptable

1. 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.
2. After seeing the opinions of high government
   officials and upper class philosophers who didnt
   use technology, it is clear that the opinion of a
   common worker or civilian who actually used
   technology would be helpful.