Your answer would be A or B
Answer:
No.
Explanation:
Communism always led to totalitarianism and Tyranny, and ends with absolutism and destruction of the rights of the people.
What you are talking about is Democracy, in which direct democracy allows citizens to vote for leader candidates directly, while indirect democracy allows citizens to vote for voters, who in turn cast votes for the candidacy of office.
~
Answer:
The colonial responses to British policies after the French and Indian War can be classified as violent or nonviolent. Hence, we have
Non Violent responses to be the following
Committees of Correspondence: this was formed in 1764, and it was a means of a series of dialogue among patriot leaders throughout the American colonies. The purpose is to unite the colonies in opposition to the British Parliament. It is nonviolent in nature.
Non-Importation Movement: this was formed after the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765. And it is a form of protest by the American colonists for the purpose of boycotting the British goods in an effort to change imperial policy. It involves the abstinence of the American colonists from purchasing or consuming imported tea and other goods. It is nonviolent in nature
Stamp Act Congress: which was conducted in 1765, was the first meeting of the representatives from various American colonies to conduct a unified protest against British taxation, including the petition of the king and Parliament for change the objectionable measures. It is nonviolent in nature
While the violent response is the
Boston Massacre: this occurred in the year 1770. And it was a street fight or open and physical confrontation involving the British soldiers shooting killing several people while being harassed by the American colonists' mob who chose to throw harmful objects like snowballs, stones, and sticks, towards the British soldiers in Boston.
Explanation:
The ultimate goal of the United States in their intervention in Mexico in 1914 was to have a neighbor that is stable, that they will be able to influence and control to a certain level, and protect their economic and political interest.
The intervention of the United States was a very variable and very controversial. They did not stick with one side to support, but instead they were changing sides, usually supporting the person in power, except when the French intervened too.
Also, the USA openly threatened Mexico that it will use military power in order to protect its interests and its citizens that own businesses and property in the country.
That is very true i assume
