Napoleon Bonaparte had a contradictory character. He had an unusual personality. The writer Germaine de Staël described him as being ‘neither good nor violent, neither gentle nor cruel’, which denotes that he was <em>neutral</em>, a<em> calm </em>and <em>calculated/prudent </em>person. he was considered<em> unique </em>and <em>very special </em>for the actions he took and the thinking he put into taking decisions. By the French writer Stendhal, he was seen as <em>very </em><span><em>ambitious</em> (''endowed with amazing abilities and a dangerous ambition’'). He was very <em>firm</em> when it was about facing his <span>opponents. Even more, he could get even mad when his passions had to face disputes. He was a very difficult person, but that made him more <em>powerful </em>than the others. Also, it is said that ''his diversity (<em>diverse</em>) made him <em>fascinating''</em>. He was hostile to his older brother. He had a military, legislative and <span>diplomatic talent. |He was<em> popular</em>, but his more of defects were: picky (<span>squeamish), selfish, egocentric.</span></span></span></span>
The correct answers are B) salt was used as a form of currency and D) salt was used to preserve food.
<em>The two factors that explain why salt was so valuable to West Africans are salt was used as a form of currency and salt was used to preserve food.
</em>
Salt for West Africans was of the utmost importance. It served as a currency that allowed themto trade gold for salt. Yes, salt was a necessary element for people to survive because salt was used to preserve food. West Africans knew how to find grains of salt from the river beds after rainfall. People from the North of Africa had abundant gold, but no salt. So they often traded gold for salt with Western Africans. So the two factors that explain why salt was so valuable to West Africans are salt was used as a form of currency and salt was used to preserve food.
The Committees of Correspondence were the American colonies’ means for maintaining communication lines in the years before the Revolutionary War.
Answer:
2) “Separate but unequal” schools are unconstitutional.
Explanation:
This is a statement from the outcome of the historical <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> lawsuit, which basically stated that "separate but equal" schools and facilities are unconstitutional.
From the passage, we can extract the words "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place...Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs . . . are . . . deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment".
Essentially, this is saying that "separate but equal" is not actually equal, which means that the people (Brown) who sued the education district (Board of Education) were not awarded their full rights granted by the 14th Amendment - and that is unconstitutional.
