Great question!
The American colonists gained their independence from Britain after a long struggle. At first, the colonists began to peacefully protest laws and policies they felt were unfair. These included policies over taxation and expansion to western lands. When their protests appeared to not be unheard, they stepped up their nonviolent actions. For example, they organized boycotts of British products.
This depends completely on the type of monarchy in question. In an absolute monarchy, for instance, the king or queen holds full absolute power. But in a constitutional monarchy the king or queen's power is limited.
Answer:
Affirmative action ensures and encourages racism
Explanation:
Back then, Blacks were slaves. It was truly terrible. It is an unfortunate past that cannot be rewritten. Now we are in 2020. Everyone living in America has not experienced that. The idea that an White American needs to work very hard and reach a certain high academic GPA and other high requirements for college, just to be beaten by a Black American with below requirements just because of the color of his skin is racist. MLKJ was for equality, which we all are for, but affirmative action giving unfair advantages to certain races is racist in every way. if there was affirmative action for white people, the country would be outraged
Magna carta translates to the great charter.
CONTEXT - it is basically a flowery name of a sheet of paper that had a bunch of rules written on it. It was a contract with some provisions/agreements/rights (choose words at your pleasure) in it and the king of England and a bunch of rebels were party to that contract. Eventually many more laws and legislations, either derived from or inspired by, Magna Carta were passed in England’s political history. Thus eventually this Magna Carta (the paper) became a kind of central or foundational set of rights from which numerous other legislations and rights were built on.
So, when someone comes with expression like “Part - 3 is the Magna Carta of Indian constitution” They simply want to imply that Part -3 of Indian constitution has Fundamental set of laws or part 3 has laws that are central pieces of legislation in this constitution. But for some reason they don’t want to put it in simple terms and so they decorate their sentence with terms like Magna Carta. So now for you to understand that statement you need to first understand a part of England’s history.
One of the main similarities between the North and the South in the United States during this time was that they were both major exporters, and relied on trade heavily--however a major difference was that the South was almost entirely agricultural, while the North was almost entirely merchant-based.