1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Mumz [18]
3 years ago
8

4)

History
1 answer:
Diano4ka-milaya [45]3 years ago
5 0

The ready availability of industrial jobs.

You might be interested in
The Thirty Years’ War in Central Europe began when
Margarita [4]

An international conflict taking place in northern Europe from 1618 to 1648. The war was fought between Catholics and Protestants and also drew in the national armies of France, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, and the Habsburg dynasty that ruled the Holy Roman Empire.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the immediate military impact of the Pearl Harbor attack?
Verizon [17]

Answer: Its  the latter A

4 0
3 years ago
Immediately after the end of the revolution, the most popular public ritual in the united states became:
kotegsom [21]
<span>The bells on churchs and public meeting establishment rang the bells continuously to obtain the attention of the people that an important event had taken place. Other methods of celebration at the time was to fire a musket into the air.</span>
4 0
3 years ago
What sort of jobs can support a middle class life style in America today?
notsponge [240]

Answer:

Well one of my parents is a counselor and the other is a truck driver and he manages the business.

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

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.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • I NEED SOMEONES HELP WHO IS GOOD AT SOPHMORE ENGLISH AND HISTORY I HAVE MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS IM STUCK ON THEY ARE DUE TODAY
    15·1 answer
  • Which group or groups decimated the buffalo herds on the great plains in the late nineteenth century? native americans who regul
    8·1 answer
  • Why did the US population triple between 1790 and 1830
    7·2 answers
  • 4. Analyze Analyze the impact of citizen participation as a means of
    6·1 answer
  • During the first battle of the Korean War in June of 1950,
    7·2 answers
  • An industrialized area of a city or town.
    13·1 answer
  • What sport would a person living in a climate with snowy winters be most likely to participate in?
    5·2 answers
  • What happens in a society that does not have the rule of law?
    14·2 answers
  • If you have a large and a small glass of juice, both at room temperature, which one has more thermal energy
    8·2 answers
  • what message might these frequent and violent changes in leadership have sent to the people of the roman empire?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!