1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Sidana [21]
3 years ago
11

Consider Raby's quote in response to the violence some people displayed during protests: "I understand your anger but your actio

ns are hurting what we are fighting for: ending all forms of discrimination in this community " What does this comment show about his character and leadership ?
History
1 answer:
arsen [322]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

Non-violent and diplomatic. Proactive and strategic leader

Explanation:

Raby is not a person that is always out to for violence or causing physical havoc in the name of protests. He believes there is a target and a purpose for the protests and believes there is also a procedure and method to achieve what is sought or the purpose. Here he makes that known that violence would yield no fruits for what they are after, thereby showing strategic and proactive leadership that is directed towards the goals.

You might be interested in
How was the League of Nations an outcome of World War I? To avoid future wars and devastation, the League of Nations was created
gtnhenbr [62]

Answer:

Was an international diplomatic group developed after world war 1 as a way to solve disputes between countries before they erupted into open warfare

3 0
3 years ago
What was life like for American Indians in new Spain?
Westkost [7]
They were taught christianity; they gave up traditions and familiar ways of life, treated less harshly
4 0
3 years ago
Which one of the works below did not exhibit the so-called animal style?a.) Animal head ship post from Oseberg b.) High cross of
algol [13]

Answer:

c i think so

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
What group of people would have wanted the constitution to include a list of rights?
omeli [17]

Answer:

Explanation:

Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Topic: Bill of Rights, Constitution, Freedom of ...

Founding Principle: Natural/Inalienable Rights

4 0
3 years ago
What led to the formation of political parties
grandymaker [24]
Election for senate
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Before Gutenberg, why were books usually very expensive?
    9·2 answers
  • Some Progressive Era reformers became particularly concerned with the extent to which alcohol was abused after seeing the effect
    15·1 answer
  • The Adamson act, which legislated working hours and pay in the railroad industry, was significant because? A. It limited railroa
    10·2 answers
  • In 2016 college cost between $9400 to dollars a year just for tuition and fees
    13·1 answer
  • Can a zombie apocalypse really happen ?
    7·2 answers
  • Global poverty is a powder keg that could be
    10·2 answers
  • Las causas y consecuencias de la independencia de estados unidos y sus mayores representantes
    11·1 answer
  • What was the ground surface temperarure in death valley june 29 2021
    10·1 answer
  • There are three different versions of the same message on the Rosetta Stone. true or False
    11·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes the constitutional amendment process?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!