A. He was a federalist and wanted the central government to be Strong in order to withhold the country
Answer:
I hope this helped. I am sorry if you get this wrong.
Explanation:
Militarism: A clique of militaristic officers (don't worry) and politicians had gained control over a lot of countries in the years because of WWII. Which is including Hitler, Stalin and even Mussolini. There aggressive tactics had forced neighboring countries to either one appease them or either two fight back.
Imperialism: European nation's sense of rivalry and even mistrust of one and another depended as they competed for colonies in Asia and even Africa militarism (which is the policy of glorifying military power and also keeping a army always prepared for war no matter what.
Nationalism: Nationalism had increased among European nations because every other nation had thought they were always the best and then disagreed with the policies all the other nations had for their nation.
Answer:
The rhetoric technique that Martin Luther King uses repeatedly in the above text is the use of similes and the use of figurative language.
Explanation:
Similes are speech techniques that use the comparison of two variables interestingly.
Figurative language is the use of a word to mean differently to its custom meaning.
<em>Martin Luther King uses Socrates and Jesus figuratively to explain his ideas, since, they are not part of his topic, but have similar traits as the situation he is trying to explain, this is an example of figurative language in the above excerpt.</em>
Martin Luther in this excerpt uses similes multiple times to bring out his points.
Some of the instances where he uses similes are;
- Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries
- Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?
This questions help him explain his point, it also makes the people understand his point out of the comparison of what they know to what they do not know.
