The Arab Spring was a loosely related group of protests that ultimately resulted in regime changes in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Not all of the movements, however, could be deemed successful—at least if the end goal was increased democracy and cultural freedom. In fact, for many countries enveloped by the revolts of the Arab Spring, the period since has been hallmarked by increased instability and oppression. Given the significant impact of the Arab Spring throughout northern Africa and the Middle East, it’s easy to forget the series of large-scale political and social movements arguably began with a single act of defiance.
The Arab Spring began in December 2010 when Tunisian street vendor Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest the arbitrary seizing of his vegetable stand by police over failure to obtain a permit. Bouazizi’s sacrificial act served as a catalyst for the so-called Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia. The street protests that ensued in Tunis, the country’s capital, eventually prompted authoritarian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to abdicate his position and flee to Saudi Arabia. He had ruled the country with an iron fist for more than 20 years.
Capitalism is basically people who want money like Mr Crabs but communism is like everything belongs to everyone and the government takes more
B. an agreement to boycott all British imports
Answer:
3
Explanation:
law of demand
is the write answer plz mark as brainliest answer it is 100% correct answer
Answer:
The Declaration of Independence was issued “by authority of the good people of these colonies.” It was a revolution, you know.
The Pilgrims did not cite any specific authority for the Mayflower Compact. However, they declared themselves to be loyal subjects of the king of Great Britain. The Compact was based on their experience in organizing dissenting churches in England and, I suppose, in the Netherlands, where they had sought shelter from persecution. In some ways it was in keeping with the English common law, which dealt with problems and controversies as they arose, rather than waiting for the government to settle them. But in some ways it was a revolutionary, democratic statement, asserting the colonists’ right to make their own laws.
