Chinese considered all foreigners to be uncivilized, what did they regard foreigners to be ?

How were northern lawmakers convinced to allow Missouri into the union as a slave state under the Missouri Compromise?

ASHA 777 [7]

<span>the way that northern lawmakers were convinced to alow missouri into the union as a slave state under the missouri compromis was : maine was added to the united states as a free state.
After prolonged heated discussion, both northern and southern side decided to find a middle ground in the form of missouri compromise. one of the compromise is the addition of Maine (which previously belonged to french) to be administered as a province of massachusets</span>

3 0

3 years ago

The historical skill of corroboration involves:

aalyn [17]

<h2>branliest pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Answer:</h2>

making sure a conclusion is accurate by checking several sources

Explanation:

History is made with sources. A source is that which allows us to verify a historical fact. The traditional conception of history only considers the written text as a source. In fact the history of two parts is divided: Prehistory, before the written texts, and History, from the appearance of the writing. But, obviously, this is a reductionist vision of history. History is everything that happens since the appearance of humanity on Earth, whether there is text or not. The Annales school will deny the written document as the undisputed and maximum source of historical knowledge. Any realization that starts from human activity will be a source.

Sources, then, are considered to be written texts, archeology, oral traditions, art, etc. Everything that humanity has produced and everything that can give us information about the past. Evidently, the written sources are the most used: stories, letters, statistics, literature, registers, files, toponymy, etc. The document par excellence is the legal text, but this is interested, since it leaves evidence of what matters to who has the power. A History book is not a historical source, since it is a book that already interprets the documents; although it can be a source for the History of historiography.

The biggest problem the historian faces is how to know the facts of the past. For this we must look for testimonies that tell us, sources that are often scattered. But once located can not be believed without more, it is necessary to verify its authenticity, its veracity, what in the document is ornament, if there are concealments, etc. The preserved documents do not speak of what interests us, but of what interests those who make them. Therefore, certain facts can be very few documents, while others exist countless data, which is necessary to make a process of selecting the documents, the Heuristic.

The fundamental problem is to determine the degree of reliability of the source, especially if it is written. You have to determine its authenticity, know its origin (which may be interested), know the degree of credibility and make a critique of it. But, once the source has been studied and understood, it is not enough to publish the fact, it is necessary to interpret it and elaborate historical knowledge.

4 0

3 years ago

Do you think communism is an effective economic system? Explain your reasoning.

coldgirl [10]

Answer:

Communism on paper is good but in practice.. meh not really.

Explanation:

The Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, and Cuba advocate Capitalist policies because they can make more money off of that. True Communism, such as Marxism would be unrealistically hard to pull off in actual society. This means no one should move up the social ladder as that would go against the ideals of Communism. People are naturally ambitious, which would be a problem with the economics of true Communism.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Name the original countries that were in NATO?

Reptile [31]

Answer:

Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Explanation:

8 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

BRAINLIESTTT ASAP!!!!

marysya [2.9K]

Napoleon’s temporary domination of Europe, at its peak between 1805 and 1812, was the very definition of an imbalance of power. But the other Answers fail to answer the question: How did the European “balance of power” change in regards to how powerful France and other powers were before Napoleon (and we should really say, before 1789 and the Revolutionary Period) in comparison to how the European balance of power, as formalized by the Congress of Vienna, ranked the powers after 1815 for many of the decades that followed?

France in 1789 was, despite dire budgetary problems and a clear slide in global influence in comparison to the U.K., still by far the strongest Continental European power in both the military and economic dimensions. This is precisely why it could overcome Revolutionary chaos and a coalition of all Europe against it between 1792 and 1795 and still prevail. On land, it overran Holland, the Rhineland and Northern Italy, and then kept all of its various opponents at bay, right up until Napoleon’s coup of the 18th Brumaire in 1799.

Napoleon then greatly strengthened the French State while gradually crushing the last hints of democracy within French institutions. After a spectacular run of military victories that saw almost all Europe subject to a new French Empire, Bonaparte’s overreach met its nemesis after his catastrophic invasion of Russia in 1812. With the defeats that followed in central Germany in 1813 and then in the bitterly resisted invasion of France itself during 1814, France found itself cut back to its boundaries of 1789. By 1815 its population was depleted, its navy all but destroyed and its overseas commerce all but wiped out.

Despite these blows, and the brief episode of the “100 Days,” the country actually recovered rather rapidly. By the 1820s, France’s commerce and industry were flourishing, and the slowdown in population growth that was to become a national obsession later in the 19th century was yet of little concern. The country had to tread cautiously in European politcs, but was almost fully rehabilitated.

The U.K. by 1815 was the world’s strongest power, vastly stronger than all its rivals. So much stronger that the only relevant modern comparison should be to the U.S. after 1945. As a result, the 19th Century could rather fairly be called “the British Century.” A truth illustrated by the rapidity with which Great Britain acquired control over more territory than any one power before or since ever has in the 1800s, comprising by 1900 nearly 25% of all the land on the planet! And the U.K. came also to exercise economic dominion over much of China (following the Opium Wars), not to neglect its political & economic control over India, first via the E.I.C and then later under direct rule; while becoming the dominant trade partner and investor in Latin America, most of the Middle East and beyond even earlier, in the immediate post-Napoleonic decades.

This said, it is a peculiar and significant fact that Britain, focused on global concerns, played a reluctant though nearly always key role in the European balance of power. While exerting tremendous influence, the U.K. stayed at a remove from most of the actual wars and crises of the 19th century, and actually stifled many potential conflicts by its strategic counter-balancing at the last opportune moment. The strongest power was typically the last to commit to a side; and often did so deliberately to even the odds and thereby deter war

Hope this helped, sorry if not.

3 0

4 years ago