According to a different source, this is the image that the question refers to.
In this question, we are asked to approach the question of "How justifiable was U.S. expansion in the 1800s?" from the perspective of four elements in the painting. This is an example that can help you guide your work:
The angel: "I carry the telegraph, I carry knowledge, I carry progress. You should be grateful."
The cows: "More expansion means more land, which means more farms and more cows. I think I like that!"
The Native Americans: "Quick! Let's get away before this so-called "progress" reaches us! They will continue to expand and take our land even if they have no right to do so."
The passengers in the train: "Without progress, we would not be in this train. I'm so glad we are expanding! It is necessary if we want technology to keep developing."
Although expansion was supported by a large portion of the population of the United States, not everyone believed that this was a good idea. In fact, the Native Americans, as well as many politicians, believed that expansion was not legitimate, and that it could bring more problems than anticipated.
Stuff that is not protein is stuff like fruit, and candies and sodas. Veggies do have some, but not a lot.
Answer:
In the Ottoman Empire, a millet (Turkish: [millet]) was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.
Despite frequently being referred to as a "system", before the nineteenth century the organization of what are now retrospectively called millets in the Ottoman Empire was not at all systematic. Rather, non-Muslims were simply given a significant degree of autonomy within their own community, without an overarching structure for the 'millet' as a whole. The notion of distinct millets corresponding to different religious communities within the empire would not emerge until the eighteenth century.[1] Subsequently, the existence of the millet system was justified through numerous foundation myths linking it back to the time of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror (r. 1451–81),[2] although it is now understood that no such system existed in the fifteenth century.[3]
During the 19th century rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, as result of the Tanzimat reforms (1839–76), the term was used for legally protected ethno-linguistic minority groups, similar to the way other countries use the word nation. The word millet comes from the Arabic word millah (ملة) and literally means "nation".[3] The millet system has been called an example of pre-modern religious pluralism.[4]
Johann Strauss, author of "A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the Kanun-ı Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages", wrote that the term "seems to be so essential for the understanding of the Ottoman system and especially the status of non-Muslims".
Please rate, and like, Give me Brainliest Thank you!
This is taken from THE GLEANER, article AFRICA'S ROLE IN SLAVERY.
<span>
</span>
<span>In the Arab world, which was the first to import large numbers of slaves from Africa, the slave traffic was cosmopolitan. Slaves of all types were sold in open bazaars. The Arabs played an important role as middlemen in the trans-atlantic slave trade, and research data suggest that between the 7th and the 19th centuries, they transported more than 14 million black slaves across the Sahara and the Red Sea, as many or more than were shipped to the Americas, depending on the estimates for the transatlantic slave trade.</span>
The inescapable fact that stuck in my craw was: My people had sold me ... . My own people had exterminated whole nations and torn families apart for a profit before the strangers got their chance at a cut. It was a sobering thought. It impressed upon me the universal nature of greed." And we might add, the universal nature of slavery.
African kings were willing to provide a steady flow of captives, who they said were criminals or prisoners of war doomed for execution. Many were not, but this did not prevent traders posing as philanthropists who were rescuing the Africans from death and offering them a better and more productive life.
When France and Britain outlawed slavery in their territories in the early 19th Century, African chiefs who had grown rich and powerful off the slave trade sent protest delegations to Paris and London. Britain abolished the slave trade and slavery itself against fierce opposition from West African and Arab traders.The slave trade<span>. </span>The African state that played a very active and profitable role<span> in the translantic slave was? The Kingdom on Dahomey.
</span>
Answer:
Task System, Wage labour, Sharecropping.
Explanation:
Task system was used in the coastal areas of the US, Caribbean in rice and sugar plantations. While Sharecropping was used in North Carolina and Virginia. Share croppers were free people who tilled the land in return they had to pay the rent to the land owners. The sharecroppers were white and black farmers who lacked the money for purchasing land, livestock and seed after the civil war.
Wage labour was used in Louisiana's sugar plantations. It was a socioeconomic relationship between an employer and worker where the labourers sold their labour under an employment contract.
Task system was the system of labour under slavery found in the Americas. It was considered to be less brutal than slave labour. Slaves working under this system often got the time for recreation and producing goods to earn for themselves. In this system the slaves were assigned specific tasks and they were free for the after finishing the task. It was mostly used in rice, coffee and sugarcane plantations as supervision is not needed while working on their plantations.
