<span>The Indian villages much more than its towns and cities depend directly or indirectly on the earth s natural resources. The Indian rural sector has high population density and high level of poverty which turns out to be a serious threat to the environment. The village ecosystem On account of its distinctive features villages in India can be considered as an ecosystem. The village ecosystem depends for its functioning on the major bio-productive systems such as agricultural lands grasslands forest and wetland which together form important physical resource base. The practice of using non-renewable energy is very low in Indian villages. Agriculture is mostly based on human and animal labour instead of oil and electricity. Tractor is used in some areas for tilling the land. Human and animal power is even used for lifting ground water. Local energy sources such as biogas solar energy firewood and dung are mainly used for cooking. Earlier these practices didn t cause much damage to the environment. But today rapidly increasing population and greater volumes of trade have led to the introduction of environmentally-damaging products like plastics and chemical pesticides. These are having an adverse impact on the environment. Lack of education and awareness is also contributing to the problem.</span>
Answer:
There were so many strikes between 1870s and 1890s because workers' wages, hours of labour and working conditions were being contested for between the employers and the Union.
Explanation:
There were so many strikes between 1870s and 1890s because workers' wages, hours of labour and working conditions were being contested for between the employers and the Union.
During this period, some of the strikes includes the following:
1. The Homestead strike 1892
2. The Pullman strike 1894
3. Anthracite Coal strike 1902
This period is also known as Gilded Age.
Answer:
germany, austra- hungary, ottoman empire and Bulgaria
Answer:
Explanation:At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.
In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.
What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.
<span>During the contested election of 1876, Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden were bitterly debating over who was the rightful winner of the White House. The Compromise of 1877 came from these disagreements: Hayes was given the White House, but would also pull the northern troops from the southern states and would end Reconstruction. This ended up leading to the rise of Jim Crow laws and de jure slavery by many of those same states.</span>
