All categories

3 years ago

Why did social inequality intensify in europe during the industrial revolution?

1 answer:

7 0

The social inequality in the English class system was stark.Wealthy and middle-class peoplethrived with all of the new opportunities created during the Industrial Revolution.Industrialproduction increased tremendously, bringing wealth and power to Great Britain and this class ofpeople.However, the poor really did not benefit much from the changes. There was noregulation of child labor.They worked long hours and were under paid.The working conditionswere horrible, and because unemployment was so high, the workers did not have a voice in<span>demanding better treatment

</span>

You might be interested in

What was the cause of the Iranian hostage crisis?

german

Answer:

The answer is A

Explanation:

6 0

2 years ago

The Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs has the responsibility of overseeing the operation of Washington’s Indian casinos. estab

soldier1979 [14.2K]

The Governor's Office of Indian Affairs has the responsibility of HELPING THE TRIBES AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WORK TOGETHER.
The principal role of the Indian affair office is to improve the relationship between the state and the recognized indian tribes. The office serves as a liaison officer between the Indian tribes and the state.

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The theme of Cofer's Common Ground is which of the following?

nydimaria [60]

The theme of a poem is the main idea that is touted by the poet. The theme of "Cofer's Common Ground" is;

2) Collective identity

In this poem, the poet, Judith Ortiz Cofer talks about the collective identity that marks her family. She sees similarities between herself and the members of her family.

For instance, she can recognize the nervous hands of her mother appearing through her skin. She also can relate her grandmother's lips to hers. Their struggle as a family has also been similar.

Therefore, this poem is based on the collective identity of families.

Learn more here:

brainly.com/question/2150560

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A carpenter purchased 70 ft of redwood and 80 ft of pine for a total cost of $351. A second purchase, at the same prices, includ

notsponge [240]

Hey there!!

Let us take the cost of 1 feet redwood as ' x '

Let us take the cost of 1 feet pine as ' y '

For the first scenario :

70 ft red wood and 80 ft pine

1 feet redwood - $x

70 feet redwood - $70x

1 feet pine - $y

80 feet pine - $80y

Total = $351

70x + 80y = 351 --------------------------------- ( 1 )

Second scenario :

1 feet redwood - $x

100 feet redwood - $100x

1 feet pine - $y

60 feet pine - $60y

total - $420

100x + 60y = 420 ----------------------- ( 2 )

Now let us get both the equations together :

70x + 80y = 351 ------------- ( 1 )

100x + 60y = 420 ------------- ( 2 )

Now let us multiply the the 1st equation with 3 and the 2nd equation with 4

3 ( 70x + 80y ) = 3 ( 351 )

4 ( 100x + 60y ) = 4 ( 420 )

............................

210x + 240y = 1053

400x + 240y = 1680

...........................

Now let us subtract the first equation from the second ...

400x + 240y = 1680

- ( 210x + 240y ) = - ( 1053 )

......................

190x = 627

dividing by 160 on both sides

x = 627 / 190

x = 3.3

The cost for 1 feet or per foot for the redwood is $3.3

Now substitute the value of x in any given given equation and find out y

I will substitute in the 1st equation

70x + 80y = 351

70 ( 3.3 ) + 80y = 351

231 + 80y = 351

Subtracting by 231 on both sides

80y = 351 - 231

80y = 120

dividing by 80 on both sides

y = 120 / 80

y = 1.5

The cost for 1 feet or per foot for the pine = $1.5

The answers - $3.3 ( redwood ) ; $1.5 ( pine )

Hope my answer helps!

8 0

3 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