Our ancestors either left Africa from Ethiopia/Djibouti across the strait to Arabia, or via Egypt to Israel. From there they went, through Iran to India, then down through South-East Asia to New Guinea, which they reached by about 40,000 years ago. Once in New Guinea, they more or less settled and were immobilised by all the other tribes around them. That's why the New Guineans resemble Africans so much.
<span>They also hooked south to Australia which they reached by about 47,000 years ago. </span>
<span>They also went from India north-east into China. From China they went up over the Bering Straits and down to the end of the Americas. They also went east from China across the Pacific Ocean, curling down from Tahita and Hawaii, reaching New Zealand as the last place on earth to be reached by humans, only about 500 years ago. </span><span>And they also hooked north-west into Europe. (hope this helped cx)</span>
Having three branches of government prevents one branch from having too much power
Answer:
C. Millie and Vanessa live two blocks from one another.
Explanation:
This is the only answer that doesn't use first person pronouns. The others all use I or we, indicating it is being said from someone involved, while this uses names and no first person pronouns.
The land between two rivers
Answer:
...“The father of modern economics supported a limited role for government. Mark Skousen writes in "The Making of Modern Economics", Adam Smith believed that, "Government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforcing private property rights, and defending the nation against aggression." The point is that the farther a government gets away from this limited role, the more that government strays from the ideal path... How this issue is handled will decide whether the country can more closely follow Adam Smith's prescription for growth and wealth creation or move farther away from it.”
Jacob Viner addressed the laissez-faire attribution to Adam Smith in 1928...
Here is a list of appropriate activities for government, which goes way, way beyond Mark Skousen’s extremely limited – and vague – 'ideal' government. That ... he goes on to attribute his ‘ideal’ list to Adam Smith ... is not alright.In fact, its downright deceitful, for which there is no excuse of ignorance (before attributing the limited ideal to Adam Smith we assume, as scholars must, that Skousen read Wealth Of Nations and noted what Smith actually identified as the appropriate roles of government in the mid-18th century).
