The theory of developmental history, however, modifies this universalism with the notion that these capacities only emerge at a certain stage of civilization (mccarthy 2009). for example, according to john stuart mill (hereafter mill), savages do not have the capacity for self-government because of their excessive love of freedom. serfs, slaves, and peasants in barbarous societies, on the other hand, may be so schooled in obedience that their capacity

The theory of developmental history, however, modifies this universalism with the notion that these capacities only emerge at a certain stage of civilization (McCarthy 2009). For example, according to John Stuart Mill (hereafter Mill), savages do not have the capacity for self-government because of their excessive love of freedom. Serfs, slaves, and peasants in barbarous societies, on the other hand, may be so schooled in obedience that their capacity for rationality is stifled

Explanation:

According to Stuart Mill, only developed and industrialized societies could create human beings capable to live in a community, and to execute the communication and the elements related to it with perfection. More than this, he advocates that the conception of freedom shared by the "inferior" societies cannot be considered freedom because of their absence of government and order, and such things can only be possible to exist in complex societies. However, when he says that humans in these societies have their rationality stifled, is because Stuart Mill believes that their living condition is responsible to create this stifled, and social non-development.

can you show the map , i'll be able to update my answer

european feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.

japanese feudalism. the era of feudalism in japan took place from the 12th through 19th centuries. during that period local rulers, either powerful families or military warlords, dominated the land, while the emperor was merely a figurehead and not a significant political presence.