I think they didn’t really have a judgement about who owned the land but had different tribes of different people, the different tribes might’ve had controversy against each other but that isn’t exactly known. Conflicts over the use and ownership of Native lands are not new. Land has been at the center of virtually every significant interaction between Natives and non-Natives since the earliest days of European contact with the indigenous peoples of North America. By the 19th century, federal Indian land policies divided communal lands among individual tribal members in a proposed attempt to make them into farmers. The result instead was that struggling tribes were further dispossessed of their land. In recent decades, tribes, corporations, and the federal government have fought over control of Native land and resources in contentious protests and legal actions, including the Oak Flat, the San Francisco Peaks Controversy, and the Keystone XL pipeline
Answer:
My gut instinct says the southern colonies had the least amount of social equality, you were either a wealthy land owner who had privilage and rights or you wroked the land. There was no inbetween
Explanation:
<span> After </span>World War<span> I, </span>Ottoman Empire<span> broke apart, with the Turks confined to Asia Minor (Turkey). Other </span>European colonies<span> broke away as well.
please return the favor and answer question in profile 20 or 10 points thanks
</span>
The answer to this is option A! :)
Brainliest appreciated
The tactic that Filipino insurgents use to undermine American power is: <span>C. guerilla warfare
Guerilla warfare is a warfare strategy where the troops are hiding within the terrains (usually they're familiar with the terrain) and obtain advantages toward the enemy using the element of surprise</span>
