The native Americans were either not effective at all or the effects were on a short term while trying to overcome the negative aspects for them from the European policies. This is due to few reasons:
- Not organized; most of the tribes were functioning individually and were rarely making alliances (usually small ones), but never came to a situation to fully organize themselves and to stand up to the Europeans. Not to mention the fact that lots of tribes collaborated with the Europeans at the expense of the other tribes.
- Quickly outnumbered; because of death caused by war and diseases, and the ever increasing number of new settlers from Europe, the native Americans were outnumbered in a very short space of time, so they lost their only advantage.
- Technologically and military disadvantaged; Europeans were much more technologically and military advanced than the native Americans, so whenever they were not willing to collaborate and listen to their orders, the Europeans used violence and force, and most of the time managed to sort out things in their interest very quickly and efficiently, and the native populations were not able to stop them.
Answer: rising tension between governments/powers and unequal treaties
Answer:
Sharpeville massacre, (March 21, 1960), incident in the Black township of Sharpeville, near Vereeniging, South Africa, in which police fired on a crowd of Black people, killing or wounding some 250 of them. It was one of the first and most violent demonstrations against apartheid in South Africa
hope this helps :)
The correct answer is D. You could sue for defamation if the allegations were true, but your reputation suffered.
Explanation
Defamation is the name by which the action of spreading an accusation towards another person is known that can cause damage to the honor, dignity or reputation of the accused who is accused. Therefore, if Senator Jones has evidence, he could sue for defamation of the media. However, the fragment also refers to Anne Tracy having witnesses to support her accusation, so it would be unlikely that Senator Jones had evidence to declare him innocent. On the other hand, if he were innocent, his reputation in society had already been affected. So the correct answer is D. He could sue for defamation if the accusations were true but his reputation was damaged.
