Answer: The uneven division of the colonies led to war.
Explanation:
The beginning of the 20th century was accompanied by European countries' efforts to acquire as many colonies as possible. France and Great Britain led the way in the colonization of the world. The German Empire and Austro-Hungary wanted a part for themselves. France and Great Britain were not interested in the possible division of the colonies; they were satisfied with the state of dominance in terms of colonization. In such circumstances, nationalism is strengthening on all sides. War rhetoric is being created among those countries, which leads to the strengthening of nationalist propaganda. The uneven division of colonies among European countries was the main factor that led to the First World War. The assassination of Prince Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was just a pretext for starting the war.
Answer:
They are on 2 different islands, they speak 2 different languages, Haiti speak Creole, and Puerto Rico speaks Spanish. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, the other is not. Haiti is also the first black country until this day that has declared independence and still have there nation.
Explanation:
Please give Brainlist.
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
Es la (c) Porque pregunta que es lo mejor que puede ayudar atu cuerpo.
Explanation:
es la c denada
Answer:
British officials reserved the land west of the Appalachian Mountains for American Indians.
Explanation:
King George Third issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763 on October 7, 1763. It was issued when Britain managed to acquire French areas in North America after winning seven years war. The proclamation prohibited any settlement west of Appalachian mountains. It was proclaimed to be an Indian reserve. Exclusion of the area beyond Appalachian mountain filled colonialists with discontent and it arose during the American revolution.
