Answer:
World-systems analysis is a mode of analysis that aims to transcend the structures of knowledge inherited from the 19th century, especially the definition of capitalism, the divisions within the social sciences, and those between the social sciences and history
Explanation:
"World-system" refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system has dynamic characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time. This structure is unified by the division of labour. It is a world-economy rooted in a capitalist economy. For a time, certain countries become the world hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and (most recently) to the United States.
World-systems theory has been examined by many political theorists and sociologists to explain the reasons for the rise and fall of states, income inequality, social unrest, and imperialism.
Answer:
A. to capture bases from which to bomb the Japanese home islands
Explanation:
In a sense, yes, but also no. The answers are half right and half incorrect.
The American's campaign against the Japanese saw a island-hopping strategy, in which the US took over key islands from the Japanese, which either 1) cut off the supply lines to other smaller islands, making the Japanese troops stationed there void and ineffective, or 2) taking islands for their own strategic value. It is important to note that throughout this entire campaign, the only nation that was taken that was not strategic was the Philippines. The only reason why General McArthur "visited" the island was because he promised the people he would be back to liberate them (following the fall of the Philippines).
The strategic value of each island taken typically fell under one of these sectors. 1) The island cuts off other islands, 2) The island has a air field. If the island is close enough or is in the middle of the ocean, it was generally taken, either because it has an airfield already, or has the means in which one can be created on there. Refueling sites & landing strips were then created, so that less planes had to ditch out in sea if they ran out of fuel.
I would definitely be worried about spies. Back then, it was a serious issue.
but also, if i was living back then, i don't think that i would stress so much over it.
Answer:
B. <u>A marriage ended by the death of a husband or wife.</u>
One of the greatest supreme court decisions of the 20th century. Unaminously held that the racial segregation of chilren in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the fourteeth amendment
hope this helps...
brainliest..?
:) <3
