2010 AP World History DBQ
An Annotated Sample Essay
by
Tracy Rosselle, M.A.T.
Newsome High School
Using the following documents, analyze similarities and differences in the mechanization of the cotton industry in Japan and India in the period from the 1880s to the 1930s.
As Japan and India mechanized their cotton industries between the 1880s and 1930s, both countries experienced a rapid increase in production early on, and workers in both countries faced similar low pay and poor working conditions. Major differences included the predominant gender of the workforce (mostly men in India, in contrast to mostly women in Japan) and the negative impact on India’s existing handloom industry that Japan did not experience.[1]
Documents 1 and 2 provide a clear picture of the rapid growth of both countries’ machine-made cotton beginning in the 1880s.[2] India’s machine-made cloth output (D1) nearly quintupled in a matter of just 30 years, and its machine-spun yarn output more than quadrupled as well. Similarly, Japan’s nascent industry soared from just 5 million pounds of production to 666 million pounds in the same time period (D2).[3] The figures in D1 appear precise, as all statistics do, but one wonders why the hand-spun yarn data are all apparently rounded to the tens place and the early numbers for hand-woven cloth are precisely 1,000 and 1,200 million yards, as opposed to 1,006 or 1,198, for example. This suggests that the data-gathering methods of British colonial authorities may have been somewhat imprecise, at least early on.[4]
Documents 3, 5 and 9 illustrate how workers in India and Japan faced similarly poor working conditions with little pay. Young girls in Japan would be forced to work long into the night with little to eat, and the close quarters in which they worked meant disease could easily spread (D3). Shunsuke (D5) openly acknowledges the low pay he gives workers, but he tries to make it sound as though his workers have little to worry about. They are “unattached” components of the family who only have to pay for their own existence. This is an industrialist’s slant that avoids the starker, more uncomfortable truth: The meager income of the factory workers also had to go to help their starving family members struggling to farm in the countryside (D4). If Shunsuke were to acknowledge this truth, he would be calling into question the morality of his own business practices. Likewise in India, the British Labour Commission’s report (D9) asserts that cotton mill workers lived in small huts and their wages were low (and had been so for many years).[5]
Documents 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 combine to show the two countries’ gender differences among their mechanized cotton employees. Document 3 comes from two women recalling their experiences working in cotton mills as young girls; D4 provides evidence that the income such girls provided their families in Japan was important; and the 1920s photo of a Japanese cotton mill (D8) reveals mostly women employees. Taken together, these three documents clearly show the importance of women to Japan’s mechanized cotton industry. In sharp contrast to this, India’s cotton industry remained male-dominated. The photo from 1935 (D 10) shows men only working in a textile mill, and the dissertation statistics (D7) provides the clearest evidence of the gender differences between India’s and Japan’s cotton industries during this time – roughly 80 percent women in Japan and 80 percent men in India.[6] While there is no reason to question the general veracity of the accounts of the women recalling their girlhood experiences (D3), it should be noted that their recollections of events apparently a decade or more in the past could be a bit faulty in certain particulars. The younger sister Aki having died must have been a traumatic experience for the sisters, and this could have caused them to later exaggerate their accounts (“we hardly had the strength to stand on our feet”). Also, one of the sisters isn’t certain how long Aki worked in the factory (“I think she worked for about two years”), which is an indication her memory isn’t rock solid.[7] The photo, meanwhile, was taken for an official company history (D8). Some of the workers are looking at the camera, so there is something of a “staged” feel to it. These facts suggest the photo does not truly show the actual working conditions of the mill, because the factory owners would have had the opportunity and desire to clean up and eliminate any signs of hazardous conditions for the employees.[8]
Documents 1, 2, 6 and 9 provide evidence that skilled workers were displaced in India but not in Japan as cotton production became more mechanized. This difference was due to India’s already mature cotton industry, which employed many handloom weavers who found it increasingly hard to compete with the cheaper, machine-made product flooding the marketplace. The Labour Commission’s 1935 report (D9) references “unemployed hand weavers” as among those now finding work in mechanized cotton mills, and the data in D1 show decreases already by 1914 in hand-spun yarn. Interestingly, hand-woven cloth production continued to increase between 1884 and 1914, albeit at a much slower pace than machine-made cloth. This would have to come to an end in subsequent decades as factories eventually undermined India’s long tradition of handmade textiles and handloom weavers continued “abandoning their looms” (D6). Perhaps the apparent discrepancy in the data – slow growth in hand-woven cloth at a time when hand weavers were leaving the profession – can be explained by an increase in the average output of those willing to continue weaving by hand. But the discrepancy may have another origin: The British colonial authorities may have been “fudging” the numbers to make the negative impact of their mechanized cotton mills on Indian workers appear less striking.[9] This was, after all, a contentious issue as Gandhi and his followers pressed for independence and eventually launched a successful boycott of British cloth, calling for Indians to spin their own cloth on simple wheels in their homes.[10] Whatever the case, there apparently was no similar job displacement in Japan, as the paltry cotton production of 1884 suggests no substantial cotton industry at that time (D2).
This essay has argued that both India and Japan saw rapid increases in cotton production as the industry mechanized, and that in both countries workers were compensated poorly and worked under harsh conditions. They differed, however, in two important ways: The workforce became predominantly female in Japan but remained predominantly male in India, and hand weavers in India but not in Japan were put out of work.[11] Additional documents are needed to confirm elements of this thesis and offer a more robust response to the question. For example, to bolster the argument about low pay and poor working conditions, financial documents are needed to compare the typical pay of cotton mill workers during this time with the typical pay of workers in other professions. This kind of economic data for the first three decades of the 20th century would allow for an independent confirmation of the Labour Commission’s claims (D9) and the testimony of the two Japanese women (D3). Also, photographs by independent journalists showing the “small rented huts” mentioned in the report would provide a better understanding of just how poor the conditions were. Similarly, candid and independent photographs (i.e., non-staged photos) of both Japanese and Indian cotton mills could be compared with the photos in D8 and D10 to better assess how representative the photos are of actual working conditions. But because photos can show only so much, an interview with the photographers could reveal details such as the temperature, air quality and noise levels workers had to deal with daily. To help confirm that India suffered much more job displacement from mechanization because of its much larger hand-woven industry prior to the 1880s, Japanese statistics are needed showing the breakdown of hand-spun vs. machine-spun cotton yarn. This would provide a more thorough understanding of Japan’s hand-spun industry (because the categories are not separated in the data in D2) and inferences could then be drawn about mechanization displacing workers in the hand-spun category. A comparison with the numbers from India could then be made with more confidence.[12]
[1] Notice that I haven’t wasted time with unnecessary introductory comments. You’ll be under a great deal of time pressure, and the DBQ will likely take longest of the three essays to write … so cut right to the chase and answer the question with a clear thesis statement, which can stand as the entire first paragraph. Here I’ve identified two similarities and two differences, so I have a four-pronged thesis. It’s taken me two sentences to accomplish this; whether it takes a single sentence or several, ANSWER THE FULL QUESTION – preferably with at least a three-pronged thesis.
[2] Work toward capturing the grouping point by beginning each body paragraph following your thesis statement with an explicit grouping of documents, as I’ve done here and in the three subsequent paragraphs. Notice I’ve begun with a grouping that will help provide some detail to back up the first prong of my thesis, not the second, third or fourth. Follow the sequence you establish in your thesis. Also note that this group has only two documents, but that’s OK; two is the minimum required for a group.
[3] Don’t merely summarize documents, including those with data. Your AP Reader wants to see analysis … and here I’ve identified a significant change in the numbers over time. Also, notice the way in which I’ve referred to the documents parenthetically [(D1) and (D2)], which is perfectly acceptable. And also notice I’ve dropped in a fancy word – nascent (which means “coming into being” or “beginning to form or develop”). Whenever possible, use the most scholarly words you know. AP Readers are human beings, and if they see you correctly using a few words like this it will predispose them to viewing your essay more favorably, which could work to your advantage on a close call as to whether to award a particular point on the Basic Core or bonus points on the Expanded Core.
[4] What I’ve done in the last two sentences is assess point of view for D1. In this case, I’ve explained a plausible reason a historian might be somewhat skeptical about the accuracy of some of the numbers. You should assess POV in your body paragraphs as you systematically analyze each of your documents. Assess POV as often as you can – a minimum of three times.
[5] In this paragraph I’ve brought together three documents into an explicit grouping in the first sentence, and then gone through each one to show I understand them. Using and understanding all the documents gets a point, so in the course of your essay don’t skip a single one! To show you understand the document, you must paraphrase rather than quote extensively. The primary analysis comes in drawing the similarity of conditions in both Japan and India, and in assessing Shunsuke’s POV in D5. Assessing POV is NOT stating what he thinks. It’s an explanation that answers this question: Why is THIS person saying THIS at THIS particular time? Notice I’ve spent four sentences analyzing this. Most essays fall short because they lack sufficient explanation, so err on the side of writing more, explaining more … really try to sell it.
[6] I’ve once again followed the structure of earlier body paragraphs by first grouping (and I’ve reused D3 in this new group, which is fine), then showing understanding of individual documents. Notice I’ve brought together five documents into a single group – three showing women in Japan, which you might have thought should be its own grouping, and two showing men in India, which could have been another grouping. But recall the purpose of the body paragraphs: to flesh out with detail the general argument set forth in the thesis statement, which must answer the question (ATFQ!) … which calls for analyzing similarities and differences. If my point of difference is along gender lines, then I must include all five documents into this group.
[7] Another assessment of POV … and I’ve really tried to sell it in three sentences rather than take a quick one-sentence stab at it. Also notice the various ways I avoid using the word “bias.” It’s probably OK to use it once or twice, but follow my example to come up with more nuanced expressions. AP Readers get sick of seeing that word.
[8] More POV! I’m shooting for a 9, so I need the Expanded Core bonus points! If I had written that the mill probably doesn’t show the actual working conditions, and left it at that, then I probably would not have gotten credit for POV this time around. What I explain after “because” is the further explanation that most attempts at POV lack.
[9] Notice the tone of the language I’ve been using in my analysis here: Perhaps the apparent discrepancy in the data can be explained by … But the discrepancy may have another origin. Not only am I trying to show off my ability to analyze the documents rather than summarize them, I’m using a tone that’s appropriate for doing history, which is tentative and qualified rather than hard and absolute. AP Readers will notice and appreciate that level of sophistication if you can manage to show it to them.
[10] Here I’ve brought in some additional background knowledge that was in my brain rather than in any of the documents given to me. This isn’t required for the AP World History DBQ (though it is for AP U.S. History) … but including some outside information is one really good way to score Expanded Core points should you get all 7 of the Basic Core points.
[11] Try – especially if you were a little shaky when you started off your essay – to restate your thesis in the final paragraph. Students often begin writing before they’ve clearly formulated their argument, and in the course of writing the essay become better able to articulate what it is they want to say. So restate – in different words – your thesis statement at the end just in case you failed to earn the point for it in the first paragraph.
[12] Explaining the need for additional documents can be done in the body of the essay (though doing that can lead to some very long, cumbersome paragraphs) or at the end of the essay. Like assessing POV, it is a point many students fail to earn because they fail to explain enough. Not only must you call for missing documents, you must explain why they would be helpful in answering the prompt (or strengthening your thesis in regards to it). A great way to come up with ideas for additional documents is to look very closely at the documents that are provided in the DBQ itself … and ask yourself this: What documents are referred to or implied by the documents in front of me? By identifying those, you have sort of a standard, built-in explanation for why they would be helpful: They would allow a better assessment of the veracity (or truthfulness, or accuracy) of the claims made by, or information contained in, a particular source or document in the DBQ itself. Notice I’ve used this tack more than once in my explanations for the need for additional documents … and I’ve taken five swings at earning this point, not just one or two. The more attempts you make at earning any particular point, the greater the likelihood that a) you’ll meet the minimum standard for earning that point, and b) you’ll earn bonus points on the Expanded Core. Swing just once or twice and you might strike out.