A way to divide countries, states and cities i the best way to define sectionalism. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the first option or option "A". It can also be defined as a kind of political loyalty to a person's region or state. I hope the answer comes to your help.
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "Food crops were abundant enough to feed all Europeans and Indians." Under British rule, all of the following were true EXCEPT Food crops were abundant enough to feed all Europeans and Indians.<span>
</span>
Answer:
B. the shift of the Roman Empire's capital from Rome to Constantinople
Explanation:
The Western Roman Empire had been on the decline, while the Eastern Roman Empire has been on the rise. Being more powerful and more influential, the capital of the Roman Empire shifted in the Eastern part of it. Constantinople became the capital of the Roman Empire in 330 AD. This led to significant transfer of power toward the East, and big loss of power in the West. The East prospered more and more and became the strongest power in every sense in the region. The West on the other side was crumbling, little by little losing its political, economic, and military power, eventually resulting in its fall.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Te question does not mention any individual in specific, so we assume that we choose the individual we like to write the testimonial.
We choose Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was an important figure and led the civil rights movement in the United States. He followed the ideals of liberty and tolerance and influenced millions of people. On his positive side, Dr. King could congregate thousands of people to the civil rights movement cause. He set the example. He was at the very front of the protests and marches. One very good thing he had was that he supported peaceful demonstrations, never violent protests. His "Letter From the Birmingham Jail" and "I Haad a Dream" speech, have influenced modern leaders around the world.
On the negative side, probably he could have been more open and tolerant to negotiate with authorities or to join forces with other black leaders such as Malcolm X, that although he used violence in his protests, the union of more African American leaders could have taken the movement to different dimensions and accomplishments.
