A major <span>justification for european imperialism in the late 19 century was "darwinism," since many people took advantage of the new theory of evolution to claim that it was only "natural" for powerful nations to overcome weaker ones. </span>
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
Answer:
President Jefferson.
Explanation:
During the early 1800s, a policy was adopted in the United States Federal Laws named assimilation policy. The policy was proposed by Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States. The proponents of this policy viewed it as a means of survival of Native Americans in the changing white-dominated society.
Though this policy required acculturation or assimilation of American-Indians into European-American Society. According to this policy, Native American Indians, who accepted the individual allotment were granted as a U.S. citizen. Among many Native groups, Hoofs was the one who accepted Jefferson's assimilation policy.
So, the correct answer is President Jefferson
