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
nikklg [1K]
1 year ago
6

Analyze: How did the encomienda system affect American Indians?​

History
2 answers:
USPshnik [31]1 year ago
8 0

Encomenderos are also mandated through these grants to convert Natives to Christianity and endorse Spanish as their primary language. Native peoples are forced to engage in hard labor and subjected to torture, extreme abuse, and, in some cases, death if they resist (Nies, 1996).

yawa3891 [41]1 year ago
7 0

Answer:  The effect was heavy depopulation of Indians from brutality and disease leading into African slaves becoming a new labor force.

You might be interested in
Okay guys, please someone help me write an opinion essay on Hernando de Soto. My opinion on him is that I don't like him. So wha
lakkis [162]

Answer:

how much do you want us to write??

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
What is Russia's location in relation to the Arctic Ocean?
photoshop1234 [79]

Answer: a) The Arctic Ocean borders Russia only to the north.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Another advantage the British had were thinkers such as Adam Smith who made huge strides in figuring out how their economy worke
zavuch27 [327]

It's either B or C. Hope that helps
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Identify two reasons for the Indian partition.
iren [92.7K]
1. Congress leadership: Nehru and Gandhi underestimated Jinnah, Muslim League, its ambitions and outreach. In the 1920s, Gandhi neglected Jinnah and appealed to Muslims for a common cause, which seemed harmless at that time.In the 1930s, Nehru, assured of the backing of his socialist ideology and the support among the Muslim bases for the same, arrogantly believed that Muslims won't be moved by a party based on faith. It later turned out he was false.In the 1930s, Jinnah was willing to negotiate an agreement with the leadership, but was constantly ignored. This is going over my head. Arrogance and underestimation of someone doesn't go unpunished. However blame is to be equally shared by all the top leaders. In the 1940s, ML with almost a million members had no compulsion to bow out. He had no reason to cut a deal now. He was demanding recklessly. He refused to allow first independence , then partition. I may not comment on the course of history had this been allowed.While Gandhi tried his best possible to stop the painful separation, Nehru wasn't ready to the idea of Jinnah being the first Prime Minister of the independent India till the very end. Patel hoped partition would show Jinnah the fault in his ideas and would seal his fate. Thus the failure of Congress leadership and the rise of Jinnah is interlinked.
2. Jinnah and the Muslim League: He instigated religious passions and fears among the masses since the 30s.He was more concerned with the fact that Muslims and Hindus didn't intermarry or interdine and that Congress didn't have Muslim representatives in the 1946 Provincial Elections. He claimed in his 1940 Muslim League Presidential Address that cultures, literature and way of living and views on life were different of the two communities. The theory of one nation had been carried along too far and that it was nothing but a far fetched dream. I don't think partition gave too much peace either.The provinvcial elections were held on the lines of religion and demand for a new country, rather than on the promises of growth and "independence".Direct Action Day was a call by this great leader. What else do you expect from such a gathering at such a crucial point of time on such a critical issue. If countries could be made by gatherings and processions, I'm going out on the streets to demand the Shubham Kingdom! The violence, retaliation and counter violence led to the inevitable- Partition of two brothers, fighting for petty issues, not ready to listen and even the parents acting as stubborn kids.
4 0
3 years ago
Which was NOT a common policy pursued by absolute monarchs King Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia?
Leokris [45]

Answer:

A) Extending control over the economy

Explanation:

Both monarchs wanted to have powerful countries: they built magnificent palaces to glorify their power (Versailles and Saint Petersburg), engaged in wars to add more territories, and forced nobility to westernize to improve armies for example, but both failed or missed to give strength and health to country economy, and increased poverty levels in their populations, as all these improvement goals rendered a lot of expenses to the State.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Need help asap
    5·2 answers
  • Which of the following pieces of evidence best shows that the United States government is an example of rule by many.
    8·2 answers
  • Under Akbar, the Mughal Empire supported
    13·2 answers
  • According to the map, during the life of Muhammad, Muslim rule was limited to
    10·1 answer
  • What happened to Chinese laborers who had helped work on the railroad, after the
    13·1 answer
  • Can anyone tell me about Marilyn Monroe’s affairs with all people please? <3
    10·1 answer
  • Explain two scientific discoveries that Newton made (one of them must be gravity).
    11·1 answer
  • Chiến thắng vạn tường diễn ra năm nào
    11·1 answer
  • What is placed before the barline when a change is made mid-piece?
    14·1 answer
  • Look at the map. What territories did Japan control in 1914? Why would
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!