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
kolezko [41]
3 years ago
7

Who are the two main entrepreneurs who believed they were social Darwinism at work?

History
1 answer:
hoa [83]3 years ago
5 0
John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were two entrepreneurs believed they were examples of social Darwinism at work
You might be interested in
According to Gribkov, why was Zorin unable to answer Adalai Stevenson’s question about the missiles in Cuba
luda_lava [24]

Answer:

I want to say to you, Mr. Zorin, that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!

But if I understood what you said, you said that my position had changed, that today I was defensive because we did not have the evidence to prove our assertions, that your Government had installed long-range missiles in Cuba.

Well, let me say something to you, Mr. Ambassador—we do have the evidence. We have it, and it is clear and it is incontrovertible. And let me say something else—those weapons must be taken out of Cuba.

Next, let me say to you that, if I understood you, with a trespass on credibility that excels your best, you said that our position had changed since I spoke here the other day because of the pressures of world opinion and the majority of the United Nations. Well, let me say to you, sir, you are wrong again. We have had no pressure from anyone whatsoever. We came in here today to indicate our willingness to discuss Mr. U Thant’s proposals, and that is the only change that has taken place.

But let me also say to you, sir, that there has been a change. You—the Soviet Union has sent these weapons to Cuba. You—the Soviet Union has upset the balance of power in the world. You—the Soviet Union has created this new danger, not the United States.

And you ask with a fine show of indignation why the President did not tell Mr. Gromyko on last Thursday about our evidence, at the very time that Mr. Gromyko was blandly denying to the President that the U.S.S.R. was placing such weapons on sites in the new world.

Well, I will tell you why—because we were assembling the evidence, and perhaps it would be instructive to the world to see how a Soviet official—how far he would go in perfidy. Perhaps we wanted to know if this country faced another example of nuclear deceit like that one a year ago, when in stealth, the Soviet Union broke the nuclear test moratorium.

And while we are asking questions, let me ask you why your Government—your Foreign Minister—deliberately, cynically deceived us about the nuclear build-up in Cuba.

And, finally, the other day, Mr. Zorin, I remind you that you did not deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today again if I heard you correctly, you now say that they do not exist, or that we haven’t proved they exist, with another fine flood of rhetorical scorn.

All right, sir, let me ask you one simple question: Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no—don’t wait for the translation—yes or no?

(The Soviet representative refused to answer.)

You can answer yes or no. You have denied they exist. I want to know if I understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that’s your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room.

(The President called on the representative of Chile to speak, but Ambassador Stevenson continued as follows.)

I have not finished my statement. I asked you a question. I have had no reply to the question, and I will now proceed, if I may, to finish my statement.

I doubt if anyone in this room, except possibly the representative of the Soviet Union, has any doubt about the facts. But in view of his statements and the statements of the Soviet Government up until last Thursday, when Mr. Gromyko denied the existence or any intention of installing such weapons in Cuba, I am going to make a portion of the evidence available right now. If you will indulge me for a moment, we will set up an easel here in the back of the room where I hope it will be visible to everyone.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who conquered Persia in the early sixth-teen century, became shah, and established the Safavid empire?
AnnyKZ [126]

Shah Ismail conquered Persia in the early sixteenth century and was the founder of the Safavid Dynasty.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
4.
likoan [24]
D.Black codes

Step by step:
4 0
3 years ago
I need help now plz!!
strojnjashka [21]
The answer is C because theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is being reconized,and patriarchy<span> is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Do you think having only two parties in power in the US is good or bad for our country? Why?​
Mandarinka [93]

Answer:

The goal of voting is to elect representatives by the voice of the people. However when only two parties are allowed to run, American choices are restricted by limited views and only given two choices. This restriction seems to be effective, but is simple not accomplishing the goal of electing the representatives the people actually want. <u>This argument says that a 2 parties system is bad </u>

Here is another argument

While the constitution does not provide language that explicitly endorses a two party system, a great deal of its laws perpetuate their existence like the electoral college and plurality voting. The electoral college makes it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win any given office by discouraging votes in individual states amongst other things. Likewise, plurality voting, which guarantees the candidate with the majority of votes wins, generally favors two opposing sides as time goes by. This is only made stronger by the fact that The majority of Americans seem to lean towards the right or left, with a small percentage staying in between. As long as these systems are in place, a two party system will naturally prevail. <u>This argument says that the 2 parties system is good.</u>    

Explanation:

It's just how you look at really if you think its bad then your think its bad same goes for the person who says its good. It's just an opinion. But each side will have supporting facts and details.  

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What are the differences between the southwest and the northwest?
    14·1 answer
  • Who was a colonist who provided the British with military information?
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following events occurred last? A. The Inca empire collapsed. B. The Inca began living in the Cusco region. C. The
    7·2 answers
  • Why did Republicans in Congress attempt to impeach President Andrew Johnson?
    6·1 answer
  • Why did patricians pass a set of laws called the Twelve Tables?
    12·1 answer
  • Republican ideas can be traced back to which of the following
    7·1 answer
  • What do the dark shaded areas suggest about the agricultural revolution ?
    11·2 answers
  • What post-war issues in Europe led to a series of "velvet revolutions" to allow Cold War socialist nations to choose self-determ
    5·1 answer
  • The Renaissance became known as a ________________ in learning and culture in Europe.
    9·1 answer
  • 1. What was the purpose of the Iranian Revolution of 1979?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!