<span>The major ways in which slaves resisted were through rebellions and their own forms of violence. In addition, they were able to run away from the plantation, which was fraught with its own set of risks. Third, they could take smaller forms of resistance, such as breaking the tools the owner had, which would slow down the overall process of working. Women were able to do this more easily, since they were not expected to work as hard as the males and could feign illness or some other way to slow down their overall rate of work.</span>
Answer:
In the 1200s, the way both European and East Asian society is pretty much the same. They both believed in the idea that there were a certain bloodline that must be obeyed the rest of the people and will be granted with the right to rule over them. There were basically no punishment for nobles who violate the rights of the commoners.
Even the way they operate their military is similar. They teach the value of 'Honor' to the soldiers as a basic principle in order to make them not afraid to sacrifice their lives in the battle field.
Between 1300 - 1600, European nations entered the renaissance period. The previous belief which made people think that nobles have the right to rule over everything were gradually changing. They started to developed the idea that the government should exist to protect the people, not the other way around. This was when the idea of democratic government started to expanded across Europe.
On the other hand, this idea just became popular in East Asia in mid 1500s. They also didn't get as much momentum as the one in Europe. As a result, East still adopted a very constricted view on human rights within this period and Government role's to protect it. Even in mid 1900s, japan still joined forces with the Nazi because they believed that they are destined to rule over Asia.
Answer:
C. The appropriate balance between observing social injustice and seeking social justice.
Explanation:
This issue is strongly debated by modern-day sociologists, because our social order seems to be innately unjust. There are people who start from worse premises than others, there are people who earn less than others and people who will earn more and there is no society without inequality.
<em>This inequality is considered "social injustice" by modern-day sociologists and philosophers, whereas other voices claim that this kind of "injustice" is not something which can be corrected. </em>
<em>The main idea is that there will always be inequalities in any given society. </em>However, <u>the big question is how big these inequalities should be and how much state interference should there be to diminish these inequalities? </u>Moreover, even with state interference, could inequalities ever be wiped out?
This is what modern-day sociologists are trying to answer, in order to build better societies without imposing too many things on individuals who are faring better than others just by birth.
