The correct answer is B) transportation.
Globalism in the twentieth century was promoted by advances in transportation.
Globalism sees the entire planet as a place to exert political and economic influence, basically through trade. That is why transportation has promoted this globalized arena in most countries of the world.
This globalism approach revolutionized societies around the world during the 20th century. It has allowed people, cultures, and ideas to spread rapidly to areas that may not have had access to them before.
Although faced with many difficulties in some countries and by some nationalistic leaders, globalization will continue to affect the world in the 21st century. Trade regions or associations will add to their base to include more members and trade among them. This is the case of the European Union, APTA (Asian Pacific Trade Agreement), or USMCA (former NAFTA-the North America Trade Agreement).
Immigrants can enrich a nation. But there is a difference between immigrants and colonists. The former are eager to learn<span> the ways of their adopted home, to integrate and perhaps assimilate — which does not require relinquishing their heritage or forgetting their roots. Colonists, by contrast, bring their culture with them and live under their own laws. Their loyalties lie elsewhere.</span>
Answer: Made slavery illegal
Explanation: Good luck! :D
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
