<p>"the Mongols, though Buddhist, did not really support or patronize Buddhism, which was largely left to its own devices." (<a href="http://www.wsu.edu/%7Edee/CHEMPIRE/YUAN.HTM%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHEMPIRE/YUAN.HTM</a>)</p>
<p>The Mongols were known for their tolerance of various religions, and I think they were more responsible for further cultural diffusion than spreading of any religion... right?</p>
<p>The Mongols were mainly noted for their proliferation of trade throughout Asia and Europe along with the mix of culture</p>
<p>The Mongols were NOT noted for there spread of Buddhism. </p>
<p>From the Columbia encyclopedia, about the "Golden Horde"
The empire, also called the Kipchak Khanate, had its capital first at Sarai Batu near Astrakhan on the lower Volga and later at Sarai Berke on the Volga near present-day Volgograd. Its ascendancy terminated the rise of Kievan Rus Kievan Rus (kē`ĕfən), medieval state of the Eastern Slavs. It was the earliest predecessor of modern Ukraine and Russia. Flourishing from the 10th to the 13th cent.
(Kiev was razed in 1240) and ultimately, although indirectly, contributed to the predominance of Muscovite Russia (see Moscow, grand duchy of Moscow or Muscovy, grand duchy of, state existing in W central Russia from the late 14th to mid-16th cent., with the city of Moscow as its nucleus. Its formation and eventual ascendancy over other Russian principalities and over the Tatars of the Golden Horde (see Golden Horde, Empire of the ) came about gradually and resulted particularly from its central location, its importance as a trade artery, its dynastic continuity, its circumspect loyalty to Tatar overlords, and its prestige as a religious center.</p>
<p>It did not say neither "ALL OF ASIA" nor "ASIA", I believe it said "throughout ASIA".</p>
<p>good so we are set on that issue</p>
<p>i was surprised how they had NOTHING on the slave trade. i mean, kaplan was obsessed with the whole sugar working african slaves, guns for slaves, etc.</p>
<p>i also put spread of buddhism for the mongol question
by the time of the mongols, buddhism had already spread to most of asia, including to japan by 600, which was one of the later places in asia that buddhism reached</p>
<p>did we settle the islam/local religion question?
i put islam btw</p>
<p>Yeah, I was thinking Mongols tolerated religion and that they converted to local religions. So only they only promoted Buddhism in China.</p>
<p>So the question+answer was: The Mongols were noted for all of the following EXCEPT: spreading Buddhism throughout all of Asia.</p>
<p>VanillaExtract: The one about southern Africa? They were all local religions, Islam never penetrated the south except on the eastern coast. And even then, it was a fusions of Islam and local animist religion.</p>
<p>I read somewhere many converted nominally to escape slavery. So can anyone confirm the solution to this question?</p>
<p>What was the answer to the question about free blacks in south america?...they enjoyed full rights after being freed? I think that's what this site says too </p>
<p>BLACK SOCIETY AFTER EMANCIPATION<br>
The black inhabitants of Latin America and the Caribbean were able to enjoy the rights of full
freedom depending on their relative numbers, their economic or occupational roles, and the degree of their access to political power.</p>
<p>I was really torn by that question. Because the ratio of black to whites in Brazil was higher than those in America, but they were also granted full rights.</p>
<p>uh-oh... im getting desperate now...
the question asked for sub-saharan, not necessarily south africa?
meaning including civilizations such as mali songhay and zimbabwe?</p>
<p>brazil is considered "latin" america?</p>
<p>^Yes, Latin America = Central America and South America.</p>
<p>Anyone recall the actual question about freed slaves?</p>
<p>When they ask for Latin American, I generally pick the most extreme example because you have to consider them ALL. So which is it? In my book it said Brazil remained the largest plantation colony and emancipated later than America. America, when they emancipated, ideally stated slaves were equal just like Brazil; was this always done in practice? No. I'm sure in Brazil and other Latin American countries, prejudices still lingered.</p>
<p>Errr... Sub-Saharan Africa is southern Africa, I just don't like typing it. But Islam didn't get everyone in the south while EVERYONE had an animist tradition. So which is it? Islam or local religions?</p>
<p>and i believe islam did penetrate to the south, mostly by merchants and trade</p>
<p>im thinking you might be right though</p>
<p>The Scramble for Africa was started by the Berlin Conference, not Livingstone, by the way, for those who were wondering before.</p>
<p>for the freed slaves questions, i put there was a higher proportion of free blacks in brazil then N.A.</p>
<p>Well it asked for the difference between Freed blacks in North American and their counterparts in Latin America. Wikipedia says that even after Lincoln's emancipation
"freed slaves in the United States were treated as second class citizens. For decades after their emancipation, many former slaves living in the South sharecropped and had a low standard of living. In some states, it was only after the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s that blacks obtained legal protection from racial discrimination (see segregation)." </p>