Answer:
Post-1945 immigration to the United States differed fairly dramatically from America’s earlier 20th- and 19th-century immigration patterns, most notably in the dramatic rise in numbers of immigrants from Asia. Beginning in the late 19th century, the U.S. government took steps to bar immigration from Asia. The establishment of the national origins quota system in the 1924 Immigration Act narrowed the entryway for eastern and central Europeans, making western Europe the dominant source of immigrants. These policies shaped the racial and ethnic profile of the American population before 1945. Signs of change began to occur during and after World War II. The recruitment of temporary agricultural workers from Mexico led to an influx of Mexicans, and the repeal of Asian exclusion laws opened the door for Asian immigrants. Responding to complex international politics during the Cold War, the United States also formulated a series of refugee policies, admitting refugees from Europe, the western hemisphere, and later Southeast Asia. The movement of people to the United States increased drastically after 1965, when immigration reform ended the national origins quota system. The intricate and intriguing history of U.S. immigration after 1945 thus demonstrates how the United States related to a fast-changing world, its less restrictive immigration policies increasing the fluidity of the American population, with a substantial impact on American identity and domestic policy.
Explanation:
The first and foremost merit of Protestant Reformation is that it dispensed with one, unique, and unquestionable authority, embodied in the Roman Catholic Church. It opened the path to pluralism - a multitude of opinions that seek to be freely expressed, without censure and fear of punishment. It dismantled the dogma of one truth and one truth only - whether it be about God, Trinity, priests, an attitude towards worldly riches or anything else. Even though it was not secular, its focus on living in this world rather than in anticipation of heaven or hell, opened new perspectives for the development of secularism too.
Answer:
1. Roman slavery was not based on race so sometimes it was hard to differ if someone was a slave or not (everyone looked similar).
2. Both roles are pretty similar except for the fact that slaves are forced into labor work and freed men work on their own free will and are treated better.
3. Slaves are abused and treated badly and freemen aren't.
4. Slaves were used in all forms of work except for public office.
5. Often times employed men and slaves would work together except that the free employed men would get paid and the slaves wouldn't (this usually happened when one cannot find enough slaves to work and can only conclude to using paid workers so that's when they end up getting mixed together).
The role of slaves and freemen seem very similar in a lot of aspects (despite the fact that slaves cannot work in public office) but they are ranked by their parents (if your parents are slaves then you're born a slave) and slaves can also be chosen out of something like a battle. If they lose they are taken in as slaves. What I'm trying to say is that freedom was not a right but a privilege for people in the Roman Republic. Things like battles were used to justify and confirm superiority over the losers and gave the winners divine right to rule over the losers (slaves) and treat them badly. At a point the slaves were practically invisible.
Explanation:
ik know i already answer this one but can you give brainlist again
The correct answer is increase in industrialization.
Due to the technological advancements of the mid-late 1800's, Americans started to rely more on industry rather than farming. Working in a factory rather than a farm had its perks. People who worked in a factory had guaranteed wages, whereas in farming the amount of money a person makes is dependent on several different factors like the amount of people who want to buy your products, climate, location, etc.
