“One of the strangest controversies in the history of Orientalism turned upon the “origin of bhakti”, as if devotion had at some given moment been a new idea and thenceforth a fashionable one. It would have been simpler to observe that the word bhakti means primarily a given share, and therefore also the devotion or love that all liberality presupposes; and so that inasmuch as one “gives God his share” (bhagam), i.e. sacrifces, one is his bhakta. Thus in the hymn, “If thou givest me my share” amounts to saying “If thou lovest me”. It has often been pointed out that the Sacrifice was thought of as a commerce between Gods and men: but not often realised that by introducing into traditional conceptions of trade notions derived from our own internecine commercial transactions, we have falsified our understanding of the original sense of such a commerce, which was actually more of the potlatsh type, a competition in giving, than like our competitions in taking.
question #1 : search this on yt Animated Map Shows How World War I Changed Europe's Borders
question #2 : I think this says something about the U.S. but also I think the U.S. had a role in the border changes because of the treaty that was signed after ww1
search this on wikipedia List of national border changes since World War I
Answer:
The answer is yes. If the federal government allowed states to do whatever they wished, and the Northern and the Southern states decided they did not need one another, the Civil War would probably not have happened.
Generally speaking, the customs and practices of British government are derived from "<span>an unwritten constitution," since the common law has build over centuries. </span>
C) nations agree to work together as a team to make it easier for them to manufacture expensive items.
