PLS HELP FAST!!

1. Which of the four statements is the strongest argument against assimilation? (1 point)

Crazy boy [7]

1. Statement 2: Diversity in backgrounds and experience creates a society that teaches tolerance and respect

When we allow diversity in a society, we will give a chance for different group of people to maintain their own cultural identity.

This might not be seen much, but it would make those group of people felt really valued despite living as minorities in the society. It will teach all members of society to tolerate, respect , and appreciate the difference that exist in other people rather than forcing the same culture and ideology toward them.

2. Native Americans were segregated into reservations

This type of action basically conveys that the government had no regard for their cultural value and want to force them to bow down to the societal standard that imposed by the settlers.

This will make a lot of them feel disrespected , making it hard for them to actually assimilate to the settler's culture.

3. Asian Americans have been victims of discriminatory legislation and executive action.

For example, Chinese Exclusion and affirmative action caused a lot of hardship for Asian Americans. Chinese exclusion that imposed until 1940s prevented the whole asian ethinicty from immigrating, which separates a lot of Asian with their family. If the entrance to university is purely based on test, Asian American would dominate more than half of the seats. But executive action limits the candidates based on race, which exclude a lot of Asian students who actually score higher than other students that got in.

4. Societal norms persisted despite legal protections

The legal protections for women to be treated in the same manner was not as effective as it intended to be because societal norms often acted as a shackle for them . For example , since they were young, they were expected to behave in a certain manner and raised to be family focus and discouraged to pursue a career.

5. -Not allowing a 10-year-old to drive

-Not allowing a male to supervise a female locker room

Rational basis test would view a certain law in different perspective to see whether it's applicable under specific circumstances.

For example, let's say that 10-year old is not allowed to drive. Now, let's say that Roy is a 10 year old with high intelligence who actually able to drive better than most people. He was caught driving his injured mom to rush into hospital. Would the law be applicable in this scenario ?

the same argument could also be made in a law that Not allowing a male to supervise a female locker room. What if the man has close relationship with the female members and they specifically ask the men to supervise the room since they feel safer that way. Would the law be applicable in this scenario ?

6. Part of the 14th Amendment emphasized that the laws created by the government must provide equal "protection" to all individuals regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, or religion.

This mean that as long as you are a legal citizen of united states, your life , property, and liberty are guaranteed to be protected by the government even and there is nothing the government can do to undermine these rights.

4 0

3 years ago

The does Paine predict will happen if Britain continues to rule America

Ksju [112]

He predicted that we can expect nothing but ruin, jealousy, and uprisings/
The rules that impose by the Brtish includes high taxation rates for the Colonies, which bring so much wealth for the British and made a lot of people in America had to work so hard with only very little reward, which might lead to Jealousy, and uprisings,

7 0

3 years ago

Explain MacMillan's conclusion that Wilson "remained a Southerner in some ways all his life." Describe how Wilson's background a

Murljashka [212]

Answer:

paki basa nalng .

Explanation:

On December 4, 1918, the George Washington sailed out of New York with the American delegation to the Peace Conference on board. Guns fired salutes, crowds along the waterfront cheered, tugboats hooted and Army planes and dirigibles circled overhead. Robert Lansing, the American secretary of state, released carrier pigeons with messages to his relatives about his deep hope for a lasting peace. The ship, a former German passenger liner, slid out past the Statue of Liberty to the Atlantic, where an escort of destroyers and battleships stood by to accompany it and its cargo of heavy expectations to Europe.

On board were the best available experts, combed out of the universities and the government; crates of reference materials and special studies; the French and Italian ambassadors to the United States; and Woodrow Wilson. No other American president had ever gone to Europe while in office. His opponents accused him of breaking the Constitution; even his supporters felt he might be unwise. Would he lose his great moral authority by getting down to the hurly-burly of negotiations? Wilson's own view was clear: the making of the peace was as important as the winning of the war. He owed it to the peoples of Europe, who were crying out for a better world. He owed it to the American servicemen. "It is now my duty," he told a pensive Congress just before he left, "to play my full part in making good what they gave their life's blood to obtain." A British diplomat was more cynical; Wilson, he said, was drawn to Paris "as a debutante is entranced by the prospect of her first ball."

Wilson expected, he wrote to his great friend Edward House, who was already in Europe, that he would stay only to arrange the main outlines of the peace settlements. It was not likely that he would remain for the formal Peace Conference with the enemy. He was wrong. The preliminary conference turned, without anyone's intending it, into the final one, and Wilson stayed for most of the crucial six months between January and June 1919. The question of whether or not he should have gone to Paris, which exercised so many of his contemporaries, now seems unimportant. From Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton at Camp David, American presidents have sat down to draw borders and hammer out peace agreements. Wilson had set the conditions for the armistices which ended the Great War. Why should he not make the peace as well?

Although he had not started out in 1912 as a foreign policy president, circumstances and his own progressive political principles had drawn him outward. Like many of his compatriots, he had come to see the Great War as a struggle between the forces of democracy, however imperfectly represented by Britain and France, and those of reaction and militarism, represented all too well by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany's sack of Belgium, its unrestricted submarine warfare and its audacity in attempting to entice Mexico into waging war on the United States had pushed Wilson and American public opinion toward the Allies. When Russia had a democratic revolution in February 1917, one of the last reservations that the Allies included an autocracy vanished. Although he had campaigned in 1916 on a platform of keeping the country neutral, Wilson brought the United States into the war in April 1917. He was convinced that he was doing the right thing. This was important to the son of a Presbyterian minister, who shared his father's deep religious conviction, if not his calling.

Wilson was born in Virginia in 1856, just before the Civil War. Although he remained a Southerner in some ways all his life in his insistence on honor and his paternalistic attitudes toward women and blacks he also accepted the war's outcome. Abraham Lincoln was one of his great heroes, along with Edmund Burke and William Gladstone. The young Wilson was at once highly idealistic and intensely ambitious. After four very happy years at Princeton and an unhappy stint as a lawyer, he found his first career in teaching and writing. By 1890 he was back at Princeton, a star member of the faculty. In 1902 he became its president, supported virtually unanimously by the trustees, faculty and students.

6 0

2 years ago

.A symbol is anything that has meaning bestowed on it by those who use it. Words are symbols and language isSingle choice.

german

Last option I think

5 0

2 years ago

What is the current definition of seditious speech?

Fudgin [204]

Seditious speech is speech directed at the overthrow of government. It includes speech attacking basic institutions of government, including particular governmental leaders. Its criminalization dates back at least as far as the Alien and Sedition Act.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers