I believe the answer is D. woman suffrage.
Answer:
It false because i took the test and you need to wear something that is professional, something that would make them want to hire you not something that might be crazy and not appropriate.
Explanation:
Answer:
The European country that most likely monopolized the Indian cotton trade was Great Britain.
Explanation:
The 19th-century Great Britain was still an imperialist country. At that moment, however, it was prioritizing establishing colonies by means of free trade. It is interesting to notice the irony in the name, since the colonies were usually not free to trade with other partners at all. A colonizer would impose its presence and influence over an area or even a whole nation, forcing it to import its industrialized products and to export their raw materials. This is precisely what Great Britain did to India in the 19th century. India was absorbing textiles that Great Britain no longer had a market in Europe for. Great Britain, on the other hand, would import India's cotton, since India was no longer producing its own textiles.
Explanation:
Woodrow wilson did acomplish his hopes for short time until others starting fighting and creating bigger problems than before. There were secrets that were against the league of nations and it was supposed to create peace but became more of war. eventually others started taking advantage of the league of nations making it to fail.
Some argue that this is a misguided question. They say that Locke’s political philosophy is not based on natural law at all, but instead on natural rights, like the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. This is probably the greatest controversy in Locke interpretation today. Natural law theories hold that human beings are subject to a moral law. Morality is fundamentally about duty, the duty each individual has to abide by the natural law. Thomas Hobbes created a new approach when he based morality not on duty but on right, each individual’s right to preserve himself, to pursue his own good—essentially, to do as he wishes.
Is Locke a follower of Hobbes, basing his theory on right rather than natural law? What difference does it make? One characteristic of a rights theory is that it takes man to be by nature a solitary and independent creature, as in Hobbes’s “state of nature.” In Hobbes’s state of nature, men are free and independent, having a right to pursue their own self-interest, and no duties to one another. The moral logic is something like this: nature has made individuals independent; nature has left each individual to fend for himself; nature must therefore have granted each person a right to fend for himself. This right is the fundamental moral fact, rather than any duty individuals have to a law or to each other. The priority of individual right reflects our separateness, our lack of moral ties to one another. According to Hobbes, one consequence of this is that the state of nature is a “war of all against all”: human beings are naturally at war with one another. Individuals create societies and governments to escape this condition. Society is not natural to man, but is the product of a “social contract,” a contract to which each separate individual must consent. The sole purpose of the contract is to safeguard the rights of each citizen.
This is the basic recipe for the political philosophy of liberalism—Locke’s philosophy. Locke speaks of a state of nature where men are free, equal, and independent. He champions the social contract and government by consent. He goes even farther than Hobbes in arguing that government must respect the rights of individuals. It was Locke’s formula for limited government, more than Hobbes’s, that inspired the American Founding Fathers. But what is the basis of Locke’s theory? Is it natural law or Hobbesian natural right? The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration of Independence, speak of both natural rights and natural laws. Locke does likewise. Natural law and natural right may be combined, but if they are, one must take precedence over the other. Either the individual’s right, or his duty to moral law, must come first. hope that helps!
