because It took many people to share the high costs.
<span>The Mahabharata and the Ramayana were two epic poems from Greek Civilization. Both Mahabharata and Ramayana are works of India but take note, it is believed to be brought from the Greek civilization. It is reported that the poetry of Homer (author of Iliad and Odyssey) is being sung in India. This implies that the Iliad has been converted to Sanskrit.</span>
<span>here
is archaeological evidence for human occupation before the land bridge
from Siberia opened up.
There has also been some recent DNA evidence
that suggests there might have been some European settlers before the
Vikings.
Although most of the DNA evidence points to Northern Asia. </span>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
First, we have to clarify something. This is not the correct statement for the question.
The correct question should be read like this: "Explain the significance of Alan Freed renaming race music as rock-and-roll music."
Now, we can comment on the following.
Alan Freed was a famous disk jockey in the 1950s, The significance of Alan Freed renaming race music as rock-and-roll music was that this change allowed him to promote this modern music in different publics, including the white youngsters that immediately fell in love to rock and roll.
What he successfully did was to take the black musicians that played rock and roll like Little Richard and Chuck Berry, to the massive white audience that had the money to buy records and buy tickets. And sell records and tickets he did, because he promoted r&r music and produced many concerts in different venues.
Many countries around the world took different decisions during wartime. Some have been more brutal and difficult than we could have imagined. But in this situation that the Armenians faced, political events also had an effect. If you really want to get the right answer, you have to turn your perspective to both sides. Because both sides see themselves as justified in this event in history. And indeed, both sides have their faults and their justifications. In 1919, two American diplomats who wanted to investigate the event impartially visited the region. Their names were Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland, and their view of the region was that both sides were right. Among the statements they wrote, it was written that the Armenians formed gangs against the Turks and plundered the Turkish villages in the region. But they also wrote that "Turkish soldiers were displaying a bad attitude towards Armenian civilians. According to the Turks, the reason for this was that the Armenians caused unrest in the region and took part in gang actions against the Turks. So the soldiers had to take control of the area. But when we look further into the past, we see that Armenians and Turks lived in peace in the empire. Even Armenian representatives took part in the Ottoman parliament in the 19th century. The reason why 2 communities that lived in harmony are so angry with each other is that foreign countries provoke the region to annex the region. We know that in the first world war, Russia wanted to invade the region. We also know that the Russians want to include the Orthodox Armenians in the region among themselves. It would not be difficult to conclude that the Russians formed gangs from the Armenians in the region and provoked them against the Kurdish and Turkish villages in the region. If this is indeed true, we would conclude that both parties are right in their own way.
