Answer:
See below:
Explanation:
Separate but equal is a contradictory idea. Why must equal things be separate in the first place? Firstly, as many know, America's history with the concept has been deceptive. For example, the "colored" restrooms were poorly looked after, while the "white" bathrooms were typically well taken care of, more so than the other bathrooms anyway. The idea was that because different races cannot coexist, we should be separated but given equal resources to survive. The only reason one would legally separate races is because they believed one race to be superior in value to the others. Therefore, separate but equal is nothing but a baseless, political pacifier.
Stay cool.<3
Answer: the third one
Explanation:
An affix added to the begining of a word root or base word
Answer:
The totalitarian political regime that rules all of airstrip one
Answer:
<em> </em>
<em>State power is widely thought to be coercive. The view that governments must wield force or that their power is necessarily coercive is widespread in contemporary political thought. John Rawls is representative in claiming that (political power is always coercive power backed up by the government(s use of sanctions, for government alone has the authority to use force in upholding its laws.( This belief in the centrality of coercion and force plays an important but not well appreciated role in contemporary political thought. I wish to challenge this belief and the considerations that motivate it. States are not necessarily coercive or coercive (by definition.( Their claimed authority is prior to the force they wield. Legitimate states should need to resort to coercion and force much less than other states, and that fact seems unappreciated in contemporary political thought.Explanation:</em>
<em>Carry</em><em> </em><em>on</em><em> </em><em>learning</em>
