1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kogti [31]
3 years ago
12

What three european empires controlled the north american continent

History
1 answer:
coldgirl [10]3 years ago
6 0
The European nations which were in control of the North American continent just a few centuries ago were the British empire, the French empire and the Dutch.
You might be interested in
How different is the practice of anthropology in the 19th century with the 21st century
nataly862011 [7]

The anthropology of religion is the comparative study of religions in their cultural, social, historical, and material contexts.



The English term religion has no exact equivalent in most other languages. For example, burial practices are more likely to be called customs and not sharply differentiated from other ways of doing things. Early Homo sapiens (for example, the Neanderthals at Krapina [now in Croatia]) began burying their dead at least 130,000 years ago. To what end? And how and why have such practices changed over time? What might they have in common with the multitude of burial customs—known to be associated with differing conceptions of death and life—among people in the world today; for example, what might embalming practices in ancient Egypt and 19th-century Bolivia have in common with each other and with 21st-century embalming practices in North America? How do these relate to secondary burials, involving the exhumation and reburial of the corpse or its bones, as in Madagascar and Siberia, or rituals of cremation, as in Japan, India, or France? Paradoxically, anthropologists’ documentation of the enormous diversity of human customs, past and present, puts into question the very existence of “religion” as a single coherent system of practices, values, or beliefs. Indeed, what constitutes “religion” may be hotly debated even among coreligionists. The study of religion in anthropology requires consideration of all these matters, including anthropologists’ own terms of analysis.



Scholars of religion throughout the world have long recognized what the American philosopher and psychologist William James (1902) called “the varieties of religious experience.” Since the mid-19th century, one of the first and most important contributions of anthropologists has been to extend the study of those varieties beyond the formal doctrines and liturgies of established religious institutions to include related customs, regardless of when, where, and by whom they are practiced and whether they are celebrated, suppressed, or taken for granted. The anthropology of religion is the study of, in the words of the English anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard (Theories of Primitive Religion [1965]), “how religious beliefs and practices affect in any society the minds, the feelings, the lives, and the interrelations of its members…religion is what religion does.” Although Edward Burnett Tylor’s classic Primitive Culture (1871) documented the wide-ranging doings of his fellow Europeans, most anthropologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries focused on so-called primitive peoples living outside Europe and North America, on the grounds that religion, increasingly defined by contrast to reason, was a historically primitive form of behaviour that was already giving way to science. Subsequent research has proved these assumptions to be wrong. As anthropology has grown to include the study of all humans on an equal footing and the field of anthropology is practiced throughout the world, anthropologists continue to confront their parochial biases.




Over the next century, as museums with anthropological collections continued to develop as research institutions, many of the anthropologists who worked there turned away from collection-based work. Archaeologists and physical anthropologists continued to use collections for study, but, until a late 20th-century revival of interest in the history of anthropology and museums and in studies of material culture and the anthropology of art, few cultural anthropologists worked actively with collections.

The last quarter of the 20th century witnessed great change in the practice of anthropology in museums. The civil rights and decolonization movements of the 1960s increased awareness of the politics of collecting and representation. Ethical issues that had been ignored in the past began to influence museum practices. By the turn of the 21st century, most anthropologists working in museums had understood the need to incorporate diverse points of view in exhibitions and collections care and to rely on the expertise of people from the cultures represented as well as museum professionals. At the same time, many new museums—such as the U’mista Cultural Centre (1980) in Alert Bay, British Columbia, Canada—were established within the communities that created the objects on display. Anthropologists in museums also were concerned with issues such as the ethics of collecting, access to collections and associated data, and ownership and repatriation.


I just got a whole story for you to get it xD (I made some mistakes i think ;-;)

Hope this helps! ~ Kana ^^


6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The Senate power of advice and consent does not apply to
harkovskaia [24]
It doesn't apply to executive orders
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which statement best summarizes the importance of media literacy
slamgirl [31]

Answer:

The answer is A. Hope it helps

7 0
3 years ago
1. What did school aged children do during the Civil War?
Oduvanchick [21]

Answer:

Explanation:

1.)Children scraped lint to make bandages for wounded soldiers, and younger children gathered supplies and food for local soldiers.

2.) Schools & churches were used as hospitals for wounded soldiers.

3 0
3 years ago
What was nicholas ii response to the revolution of 1905?
Over [174]
What was Nicholas II's response to the revolution of 1905?

Nicholas II created the Duma to represent the people in response to the revolution of 1905.

Tsar Nicholas II had two basic responses:

He created the Duma, supposedly to be a democratically elected legislative body to make laws the even the Tsar would have to obey. He soon began to ignore whatever it did and even dissolved the first one. He never let it become a true legislative body despite his promises.He issued the October Manifesto which declared that the Russian people would have more personal freedoms than before. The Tsar also ignored these promises.

The Tsar's empty promises quelled the 1905 revolution, but his gradual failure to make good on his promises led to the people having a deep distrust of the Tsar and eventually when the February Revolution broke out in 1917, no one would accept his empty promises of reform and he was forced to abdicate the throne

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How do anthropologists explain worldwide variation in human blood types?
    6·1 answer
  • Setores envolvidos na guerra dos mascates
    10·1 answer
  • Discuss the impact of the positive and negatives of the new and old world
    6·1 answer
  • Missions were established in the New World to teach and train Indians.<br> True<br> False
    7·2 answers
  • which of the following is the best evidence that cold war fears affected American civil liberties during the 1950's
    12·2 answers
  • HELP!!
    10·2 answers
  • If you live in New York how many broughs we have in NY??
    7·1 answer
  • Why might an environmental interest group want to conduct a public opinion poll?
    12·1 answer
  • Which phrase best completes this list? Changes in Women's Lives in the 1800s More educational opportunities for women More women
    12·2 answers
  • Hi
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!