I think this is interesting because it shows that the Ottoman Empire did not reject science, but used it differently than Europeans did. Instead of focusing on how astronomy might challenge religious or philosophical beliefs, Ottomans focused on what was useful for everyday needs. This helps explain why ideas like a sun centered universe did not cause major controversy there the way they did in Europe.

This line stands out because Marx is saying socialism is not just a political belief, but something that history will naturally lead to. He treats social change like a scientific process driven by class conflict, not by individual choices or moral arguments. This shows a big shift away from Enlightenment ideas that focused on reason and independent individuals as the main drivers of progress.

This line shows why the Scientific Revolution was so unsettling for people at the time. If the earth was no longer at the center of the universe, it challenged the idea that humans held a special place in God’s plan. I think this explains why new scientific ideas caused fear and resistance, not just because they changed science, but because they forced people to rethink religion and humanity’s role in the universe.

This line stands out because it pushes back against the idea that religious labels define who people are. Guru Nanak seems to be saying that faith matters more than whether someone is Hindu or Muslim. At a time when religion shaped social life and identity, this would have been a powerful and challenging idea that helped Sikhism grow into its own tradition.

This part stood out to me because it shows that the Mughal Empire tried to rule through inclusion rather than forcing one religion or culture on everyone. Akbar seemed to understand that governing such a diverse population required him to compromise, especially with the Hindu people. It also makes Aurangzeb’s later policies feel more significant, since abandoning this balance created conflict and weakened the empire.

This example gives the idea that race and gender didn't always completely limit women’s power in colonial society. Even though mestizas were often looked down on and faced discrimination, some women were still able to use marriage, business skills, and opportunity to gain wealth and status. It shows that the colonial system was unequal, but not totally rigid, and it looks like some women were able to navigate it in their own way.

This part stood out to me because it shows that European empires did not just take over existing societies but created entirely new ones after Native populations were severely reduced by disease and violence. The mix of European and African people explains why colonial societies looked very different from Europe. Mercantilism also helps explain why countries were mainly used for profit and competition, which is likely what led to constant rivalry and conflict between European powers.

How did the Aztec Empire’s reliance on tribute and indirect control over conquered peoples affect its stability, especially when facing internal rebellions and later the Spanish invasion?

This shows how long lasting and influential the Ottoman Empire was compared to many other states of the period. Its power for hundreds of years suggests strong political institutions and adaptability, which helps explain why it became such a dominant force in world history.

I’m curious how the Igbo rejection of kingship compares to other stateless societies around the world. Was this mainly a cultural value, or did environmental and social factors make centralized authority less useful for them?