Answer:
Explanation:
No
Humans developed over the past 200,000 years, mostly as hunters and gathers. This ancient form of life most recently practiced by Indigenous peoples of Australia, America and the Kalahari Desert, meant small groups of humans travelled endlessly with minimum goods and chattels to weigh them down. Most goods were considered communal property and members were very liberal about sharing. Some have said that this was the most idyllic lifestyle we ever had. We were able to live without “wealth" or even a lot of personal goods.
Once humans settled to farm about 10,000 years ago, ownership of land and crops were our first “wealth" objects. Larger scale conflicts, “wars" started to become the norm for society.
By the middle ages we had “money" and credit which was a much simpler way of measuring “wealth". Today, money and Ferraris and Porches together and other conspicuous consumption items, are the normal indicators of wealth.
I do believe that humans could exist without wealth. Who knows, some cataclysm could decimate our populations and cities and we may revert to a simpler and more fundamental life, without iPhones! Hope this helps
Yes
The world existed for billions of years without material wealth.
Life, even humans, existed for millions of years without material wealth.
There are groups of people that live without material wealth right now:
Monks
Some homeless people
A few tribes in the Amazon
A few cults
Concept of Material wealth is necessary for most forms of civilization. Without it, would be very tricky to have any sort of organization between people, but it is possible in small enough groups .
These are the three that have to do with social matters, and thus historians' answers would be influenced by their social ideology:
- 2 )How did the Harlem Renaissance affect American culture as a whole during the 1920s?
- 3) How did desegregation affect the white and black populations of Alabama?
- 6) How did religious intolerance impact different groups of immigrants in early America?
As for the other answers:
- 1) has to do with politics/government or political science. (How were colonial constitutions in America different from British colonial charters?)
- 4) has to do with diplomatic history / international relations. (What was the diplomatic relationship between the United States and the USSR after World War II ended?)
- 5) has to do with military history. (What weapons were most effective in World War I combat?)
The three items I noted at first all concern social/cultural topics, and so would be influenced by a historian's own social ideology.
Answer: is immune from the jurisdiction of the US court
Explanation:
Under the The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, the US does not have jurisdiction to try the case
The answer is B. judicially review
hope this helped !
Answer:
I believe that C might be the answer.
Explanation:
This seems somewhat like a trick question, but he learned that no matter how hard he studies, he will still not make good grades. If he stays by this lesson and doesn't change once he gets to college, then C would be the most logical answer.
I hope this answer is correct and I'm not the reason that you fail. Have a nice day. :)
