Explanation:
In simpler words, the multi-part question is asking for you to first analyze the three sources, then pick a side and have knowledge to defend your point on the question 'to what extent should nations pursue their national interests'.
In source 1, it shows that the majority of Canadians are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, with 36% voting for, 5% unsure, and 59% voting against.
Source two is clearly depicting the nazi's, at a rally held in Nuremberg. Although the source does not state if the protesters are pro or against Nazi regime, I am assuming they are pro. This would lead to the assumption that the people of Nuremberg are pro-Nazi empire.
The source 3 is a timeline, that goes from 1920 to 2005. This time period is very significant, because it captures many important battles, such as world war 2, Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq invasion.
After reading these three sources, you must decide if you think it is good for nations to pursue their national interests, or bad.
Hope this long explanation helped clarify the troubling question for you!
Answer:
One prominent abolitionist group of this time formed its own political third party, called The Liberty Party of 1840. This Party wanted to work within the political system to abolish slavery.
Explanation:
Though it did not achieve its loftiest political goals, the Liberty Party helped to garner more national support for abolition.
Hope this helps
I believe the answer would be C, burning fossil fuels. Oil and gas is made up of the remains of microscopic plankton. Over millions of years the remains become the carbon-rich coal, oil and gas we can use as fuel. When fossil fuels are burned they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus contributes to global warming.
Answer: No
Explanation: While the Red Scare drove America's left and any possible allies with communism or socialism underground, it also allowed for a real anger to form and pushed conversations about social justice into back rooms.
