Answer:
The Dominican military went through moderate change, and its most obstinate components were dispatched abroad, regularly on imaginary political missions. In spite of destitution and hardship, the change toward popular government proceeded.
Haitian powers mounted close constant attacks against its neighbor all through the 1840s and 1850s. Out of irritation and dread, one venturesome Dominican president hit upon the ideal arrangement: he restored his nation to Spain, which continued frontier rule from 1861 to 1865.
This activity incited severe dissent in Haiti, uneasy about Spanish force, and in the US, shocked by quite an outrageous infringement of the Monroe Convention.
As in Cuba, American speculators started demonstrating interest in Dominican sugar when the new century rolled over. U.S. military intercession from 1916 to 1924 fixed this two-sided relationship. Before the finish of the occupation, two American aggregates possessed eleven out of the 21 ingenious (factories) in the nation and five of the others were claimed by U.S. residents.
Explanation:
There can be hazard in nearness to the US. Alongside Mexico and Focal America, islands of the Caribbean have shared this obvious reality. Through exchange, venture, intrusion, and tact, the US applied exceptional impact over patterns and occasions here all through the 20th century. Along with Focal America, investigation of the Caribbean gives significant point of view on difficulties confronting the district all in all and on the multifaceted nature of between American undertakings.
I'll give you some thoughts on the political views of the thinkers named. It's up to you to search for images and write your descriptions.
Aristotle believed there were three valid types of government, depending on the size and scope of what was to be governed or upon local situations. (He studied the constitutions of various governments as part of his work in writing <em />his work, <em>Politics.</em>) As state with a sole ruler ruling rightly is a monarchy. If that form of state is abused, it becomes tyranny. A state with a number of members of the ruling class is an aristocracy -- rule by the excellent ones, noble men suited for governing. If it is corrupted by having a few rule but not of noble character or in a noble way, Aristotle referred to that as an oligarchy (rule by a few). A state in which all worthy men participate in governing Aristotle termed a polity, a constitutional government. He saw it as a corruption, though, to have a full democracy (rule by the people), which would become the sort of thing we call mob rule.
Aquinas picked up thoughts from Aristotle, who had favored a monarchy. Aquinas, writing from a Christian perspective, wrote about the righteous and proper sort of ruler who would serve as God's appointed leader among the people, truly caring for them (not becoming a tyrant).
Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx were partners in establishing communism as a political ideology. Engels and Marx believed that in time, class struggles between overlords and those beneath them would give way to a society in which all ruled and lived and worked collectively.
The answer is B. None of the other choices were a result of that war.
