Answer:
The Civil Rights Movement was a peaceful protest to demand equal rights under the eye of law.
Explanation:
The Civil movement was an organized effort for social justice that occurred to end discrimination and racial segregation for black Americans. By the middle of the 20th century, black Americans had suffered from bias and brutality. Though slavery was abolished at the end of the Civil War, the integration of former slaves was not a steadfast task. Blacks were deprived of voting rights, have to face violence, and were discriminated in public offices.
The movement brought fruit in the form of the Civil Right Act of 1964, the law ensured fair jobs for all, prohibited the use of voter literacy tests and required federal officials to consolidate public amenities.
Answer:
15th Amendment.
Explanation:
The 15th Amendment of the Constitution of America allowed all men to vote without racism and discrimination. The law after the Civil War granted the rights to the African Americans (now freed) to vote. Before ratifying the amendment, only white men in America were allowed to vote and elect the government. The 15th Amendment was rectified during the Reconstruction era along with other Amendments like the 13th and 14th.
Answer:s the United States enters the 21st century, it stands unchallenged as the world’s economic leader, a remarkable turnaround from the 1980s when many Americans had doubts about U.S. “competitiveness.” Productivity growth—the engine of improvement in average living standards—has rebounded from a 25-year slump of a little more than 1 percent a year to roughly 2.5 percent since 1995, a gain few had predicted.
Economic engagement with the rest of the world has played a key part in the U.S. economic revival. Our relatively open borders, which permit most foreign goods to come in with a zero or low tariff, have helped keep inflation in check, allowing the Federal Reserve to let the good times roll without hiking up interest rates as quickly as it might otherwise have done. Indeed, the influx of funds from abroad during the Asian financial crisis kept interest rates low and thereby encouraged a continued boom in investment and consumption, which more than offset any decline in American exports to Asia. Even so, during the 1990s, exports accounted for almost a quarter of the growth of output (though just 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product at the end of the decade).
Yet as the new century dawns, America’s increasing economic interdependence with the rest of the world, known loosely as “globalization,” has come under attack. Much of the criticism is aimed at two international institutions that the United States helped create and lead: the International Monetary Fund, launched after World War II to provide emergency loans to countries with temporary balance-of-payments problems, and the World Trade Organization, created in 1995 during the last round of world trade negotiations, primarily to help settle trade disputes among countries.
The attacks on both institutions are varied and often inconsistent. But they clearly have taken their toll. For all practical purposes, the IMF is not likely to have its resources augmented any time soon by Congress (and thus by other national governments). Meanwhile, the failure of the WTO meetings in Seattle last December to produce even a roadmap for future trade negotiations—coupled with the protests that soiled the proceedings—has thrown a wrench into plans to reduce remaining barriers to world trade and investment.
For better or worse, it is now up to the United States, as it has been since World War II, to help shape the future of both organizations and arguably the course of the global economy. A broad consensus appears to exist here and elsewhere that governments should strive to improve the stability of the world economy and to advance living standards. But the consensus breaks down over how to do so. As the United States prepares to pick a new president and a new Congress, citizens and policymakers should be asking how best to promote stability and growth in the years ahead.
Unilateralism
Assuming you're referring to the same text as before, yes her feelings about working in the mill are typical in the sense that she found the work slightly boring.
I think it is A. Because the factory owners would do anything to make more money. (they were greedy)
