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
ira [324]
3 years ago
7

How did the columbian exchange affect th american and europe

History
1 answer:
nekit [7.7K]3 years ago
7 0
Never before in human history had so many of the world's plants, animals, and microorganisms been so thoroughly and so abruptly mixed and dispersed. We call this phenomenon the Columbian Exchange. Determined to farm the American land in a European manner, the colonists introduced their livestock: pigs, horses, mules, sheep, and cattle.

Hope this helped!




You might be interested in
Which principles does the preamble of the United States Constitution promote? Check all that apply.
djyliett [7]

Answer:

The 1935 Constitution Republic of The Philippines, (The National Territory) article I

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What features of child labor seemed newly objectionable in the context of factory industry?
RoseWind [281]
The Industrial Revolution was one of the great changes in Western and ultimately
worldhistory. Taking shape toward the end of the 18th century in Great Britain, industrialization dominated th 19th century in Western Europe and North America.
6 0
3 years ago
How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)
nadezda [96]

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

7 0
3 years ago
8. Rutherford B. Hayes was declared the winner of the 1876 presidential election after he
mylen [45]

Answer:

3rd option

Explanation:

"An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes; in return for the Democrats' acquiescence to Hayes' election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction."

3 0
2 years ago
In colonial days, many American Protestants believed in _____, the idea that God decided the fate of a person’s soul even before
belka [17]

Answer:

Predestination.

Explanation:

In Christian, theology Predestination is the doctrine that the fate of every individual soul was decided by God. Although the meaning and element of determinism are kept on evolving with respect predestination. Modern meaning revolves around the free human will but the path of salvation is decided by the will of God.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did child labor laws affect children's employment levels during the Progressive Era?
    7·1 answer
  • One of the basic belief of nonviolent direct action is to make the oppressor face the difference between the oppressors ideas an
    9·1 answer
  • Who is the inventor of the steel manufacturer
    15·1 answer
  • What is one possible problem with communism?<br> from lesson 3.05 world history
    15·1 answer
  • The delay in implementing which Supreme Court decision helped lead to the protest shown in this photograph?
    13·1 answer
  • What was unique to the religious practices of ancient Israelites?
    5·2 answers
  • What is a historian trying to understand when examining a historical figures point of view?
    5·1 answer
  • Describe three ways in which materials released by the volcano could impact the grassland area
    14·1 answer
  • do you think philip nolan was working with the united states goverment to take control of texas from spain
    13·1 answer
  • What evidence in this lesson supports the idea that Native Americans
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!