I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
Answer:They wore clothing similar to white settlers, they signed treaties with the federal government, they created a written language and constitution, and they set up plantation systems. (A C E F)
Explanation:
Indian merchants and industrialists support the civil disobedience movement because they wanted to import, make a profit, and have a conversion rate for rupees.
<h3>What is civil disobedience moment?</h3>
Civil disobedience moment means when a person wants to oppose something but in a peaceful manner.
The merchants and the industrialists wanted protection against the import that they were doing. The industrialists and the businesses wanted to earn more profit from what they made after World War I.
They also wanted that the government may allow them to establish some major industries. They also wanted to have a rate at which they can exchange rupees.
Learn more about civil disobedience, here
brainly.com/question/342503
#SPJ4
<span>The economic and agricultural activities took that took place in and around còrdoba were farming and studying</span>
