The Cuban War of Independence<span> (</span>Spanish<span>: </span>Guerra de Independencia cubana<span>, 1895–98) was the last of three liberation wars that </span>Cuba<span> fought against </span>Spain<span>, the other two being the </span>Ten Years' War<span> (1868–1878) and the </span>Little War<span> (1879–1880). The final three months of the conflict escalated to become the </span>Spanish–American War<span>, with United States forces being deployed in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the </span>Philippine Islands<span> against Spain. Historians disagree as to the extent that United States officials were motivated to intervene for humanitarian reasons but agree that </span>yellow journalism exaggerated atrocities attributed to Spanish forces against Cuban civilians.
First, the Roman Catholic Church was the only church at this time. As such, it was felt to have a monopoly on religious knowledge and on the relationship between Europeans and God. In other words, the Church could control who went to Heaven and who went to Hell. This gave it tremendous power over people’s lives. The Church did much to determine how people would live since it said what was permissible and what was not.Second, the Church was a major political force during this time. Kings and queens wanted and needed papal approval, particularly when they were somewhat weak (as in times of conflict over succession). This, among other things, allowed the Church to exercise political power as it could help to determine which claimants to a throne would be deemed acceptable. There was a long history of tension between the church and secular authority over this and other political issues.<span>Finally, the Church was deeply involved in economic life. The Church controlled a great deal of land (the main source of wealth at this time), largely because it owned monasteries. By owning all the land connected to the monasteries (often willed to it by people wanting to ensure their own salvation), the Church was a major economic power.</span>
Answer:
Many colonies were economically more developed than they likely would have been had they not bee colonized. An example of this is India, a country which likely wouldn't be in the economic position it is today if it weren't for advances made under British rule. India would likely be even less developed than it is today and would probably be split into several if not many smaller nations/kingdoms.
Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis.
Answer:
The export of cotton increased by 50% between 1800 and 1860.
Explanation:
Whitney's cotton gin model was equipped for cleaning 50 pounds of lint every day. The model comprised of a wooden chamber encompassed by columns of slim spikes, which pulled the build up through the bars of a brush like network. The grids were firmly divided, keeping the seeds from passing through. Loose cotton was brushed off, preventing the mechanism from jamming.
