Because the more people a state has, the more power it has (in relationship to all the other states). So, since it has a big population, it needs more representatives to represent how many people there are. idk if this helps :/ sorry
The correct answers to these open questions are the following.
I think some have defined nineteenth-century nationalism as a "secular religion" because it was so ingrained in people's minds that seemed like they professed a religion with their nationalistic ideas. Those nationalistic ideas were so ingrained that people defended them at all cost and were the cause of many differences, and conflicts, even wars.
I don't think this could be viewed more as a God-given right or power because God did not do these things. I considered that people felt they deserve to be more and have more. That is why they set these boundaries and did not accept other nations' culture, language, history, and traditions,
Regarding Guisseppe Mazzini, I think he can be considered nationalistic. An important Italian political figure of his time, he was a supporter and promoter of the revolutionary movement in Italy that tried to unite the dispersed territories.
Answer:
the pharaoh was the head of state and the divine representative of the gods on earth. Religion and government brought order to society through the construction of temples, the creation of laws, taxation, the organization of labour, trade with neighbours and the defence of the country's interests.
Explanation:
welcome:)
It must be considered that with the assistance given by United States, they were not only helping people, but also sharing their culture and teaching Japanese thigs from the other side of the world that they didn't know. So, if US hadn't proveded assistance, it would've taken Japan way longer to recover after war, and they wouldn't have the same society they have nowadays, as it shows it is influenced in several ways by the American culture.
The correct answer in the space provided is 1896 as this is
the year where the Supreme Court rule the Plessy v. Ferguson in which nothing
inherently discriminatory in separating the races. The Plessy v. Ferguson is a
landmark decision in which it is responsible for upholding the segregation laws
for the public.