Answer:
Explanation:
Two revolutions are similar to the French Revolution, excepting for one or other aspect:
The American Revolution
The Russian Revolution
According to Crane Brinton in his book The Anatomy of Revolution, there are stages to be followed and goes from the euphoria to terror. The American Revolution didn't have a terror regime, but the euphoria to freedom leads to the separation of England and the thirteen colonies. On the other hand, the Russian Revolution follows the same steps of the French Revolution, beginning with the euphoria to take down the Tsar and his government, and followed by the establishment of a communist regime which leads to a regime of terror.
The answer should be False. Please inform me if you want to learn more.
Hope this Helps! :)
I think it’s decreases because the quantity that’s being produced is decreasing, lmk if I’m wrong!
A 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service stated, at the national level, violent crime and homicide rates have increased each year from 2014 to 2016
White examines the "middle ground" as both a place (the pays d'en haut of the Great Lakes region between 1650-1815) and a process of mutual accommodation between Algonquian-speaking Indians and French, British, and Americans. The middle ground consisted of creative misunderstandings in which Indians and Europeans attempted to build a set of mutually understandable practices. Several conditions are necessary for a middle ground process: a nonfunctioning or weak state authority, a relatively evenly-balanced distribution of power between peoples, the inability of one side to effectively use force over the other, and the need or desire to interact with one another (such as for trade goods). Both sides then try to engage in practices that the other side might find intelligible, such as European leaders consciously taking on the role of a patriarch that distributes gifts, mediates conflicts, and "covers" violent deaths. Indians, meanwhile, began participating in a market economy, compromised on legal punishments, and submitted to a limited degree to European oversight. The middle ground took place on both formal diplomatic levels (European powers budgeting for gift-giving) and the more everyday scale of individual interactions (sex and violence). People on both sides tried to justify their actions in terms of what they THOUGHT the other side's cultural framework to be (creative misunderstandings). Perhaps the best example is that of how they treated homicide, with both sides compromising - Europeans would sometimes cover the dead, while Indians would sometimes allow for individual perpetrators to be punished.
The narrative arc of The Middle Ground begins with a story of refugees, as Algonquian-speaking Indians flee northward from brutal warfare at the hands of the Iroquois during the 1640s-1660s. This places them in the orbit of French traders and missionaries and allow for the middle ground to flourish. The first half of the eighteenth century was a golden age for the middle ground, as Algonquians developed a relationship with Onontio (the title for a French governor) in which he was expected to act as a father in disbursing gifts and mediating conflicts. During this period the fur trade became deeply entangled with gift-giving, representing a hybrid form of exchange that was necessary for the system to function for both sides. During the 1740s and 1750s the French-Algonquian alliance began to weaken with increased competition from British. White drives home the point that in the pays d'en haut local, village politics were inseparable from imperial politics - instead of a hierarchical system of competing nation-states, the world of the middle ground took place between village alliances, intermarriages, and the decisions of specific chiefs that ended up reverberating across imperial politics.
