1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
SpyIntel [72]
2 years ago
8

What was like;y to result from the interaction between population trends in the colonies and the line fixed by the proclamation

of 1763?
History
1 answer:
g100num [7]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

What was likely to result from the interaction between population trends in the colonies and the line fixed by the Proclamation of 1763? The conflict would likely result, as colonists pushed for settlement in the land reserved for Indians.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
What was the justification used by the roberts court in its majority decision on the affordable care act's second challenge befo
aliina [53]

The Robert’s Court upheld the administration's actions. According to its ruling, while the wording as written was problematic, the meaning was clear. As a result, the Supreme Court sustained the administration’s action and the bill in its entirety although not uniformly with the government

5 0
4 years ago
What do followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have in common?
stepan [7]
They are all monotheistic (believe in one god), They have holy books. Christians read The Holy Bible, Islamics read the Quran, amd Judaism read the Hebrew Tanakh.



hope his helped!
6 0
4 years ago
Can anyone pls help me with this?<br> Thanks :)
Natali5045456 [20]

Answer:

pogi ako alqm mo bq yun? ha

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Mikhail gorbachev informally agreed to help ronald reagan and the u.S. In the event of what situation?
Rudiy27

Answer:

He informally agreed to help Ronald Reagan in the event of a UFO invasion.

Explanation:

While the agreement was informal, Gorbachev admitted in an interview that both him and Raegan agreed that in the event of a UFO invasion, their <em>differences would be put aside</em> to fight against this threat.

The conversation took place when both leaders were walking at the Lake Geneva Summit in 1985.

7 0
3 years ago
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Hat book helped to draw attention to the abolitionist cause in great britain?
    9·1 answer
  • Which terms best describe Kublai Khan?
    15·2 answers
  • Which of the following countries were NOT authoritarian/Communist (Bolshevik or Leninist) and had command economies.
    8·2 answers
  • 8. _______ were English mariners of the Elizabethan era employed by the queen to harass the Spanish fleets and establish a footh
    11·2 answers
  • 1The Treaty of Verdun:
    14·1 answer
  • According to Vegetius, what led to the changes in Roman military armor and training techniques?
    11·1 answer
  • Why do images of hatshepsut show her with a beard​
    15·2 answers
  • Which two statements are true for both compounds and mixtures
    5·1 answer
  • “As European countries continued to compete for overseas empires, their sense of rivalry and mistrust of one another deepened.”
    10·1 answer
  • Question 9 of 10
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!