Pros of globalization:
-It can increase trading ,and the developing countries would have an greater access to market overseas,hence the more developed countries would be able to enjoy cheaper goods while the developing countries would be able to buy goods with higher quality.
-It promote cultural intermingling and countries would be able to learning more about other cultures, thus building up mutual respect to each other. This is likely to lower the possibility of discrimination and divergence between people. It would also promote initiatives to create new ideas and products.
Cons
-There would be a loss of cultural divergence,which is important to building one's cultural identity as well as self-identity.
-It could potentially widen the poverty gap. Large multinational corporations are likely to dominate the market thus threatening the opportunities for local corporations or smaller brands survival.
Hope it helps!
Answer: to paint an accurate portrait of the entire slave experience
Explanation:
<span>
most electoral votes and selected George Bush for president.</span>
It should be noted that the five parts of the coercive Acts include:
- Massachusetts Government Act.
- Administration of Justice Act.
The Coercive Acts were the laws that were passed by the British Parliament in order to punish the colony of Massachusetts Bay.
It should be noted that colonists called the Coercive Acts the "Intolerable Acts because they believed that the acts were cruel and severe.
Learn more about the Coercive Acts on:
brainly.com/question/4235408
Answer:
There's a popular belief that Americans fought and won the entire revolution with nothing but guerrilla warfare. That's not true, and the myth largely stems from how the war began. The very first military engagement between British and American forces occurred on April 19 of 1775. American militia men had been covertly transporting weapons and colonial government leaders from town to town, hiding them from the British army. The British heard about these stockpiles in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord and went to seize them. The American volunteers of these town gathered together to oppose the British, resulting in a brief skirmish. As the British beat a hasty retreat back towards Boston, American militia units basically popped out of the bushes along the entire road, shot a few volleys, and disappeared. It wasn't enough to decimate the British, but the British weren't prepared for it, and it drove them back.
Explanation:
Imagine that you are in charge of leading a small army of volunteer soldiers against the largest and most powerful professional army in the world. Are you going to march straight into battle? Not if you expect it to be a very long one!
For centuries, small armies have relied on guerrilla warfare to help even the odds. This includes non-traditional wartime tactics like ambushing, sabotage, and raids rather than direct engagements. Guerrilla warfare is not meant to really defeat an opponent; instead, the idea is to make the war drag on and become so expensive that your adversary gives up. It's the different between fighting a professional boxer versus a swarm of mosquitoes - the mosquitoes won't kill you, but they just may drive you away.
Amongst the many armies to try out these tactics were the American colonists fighting for their independence. The American Revolution was a conflict between a group of volunteers and a massive professional army. Did they think they could defeat Britain, the heavyweight champion of European colonialism? Maybe not, but while Britain prepared to defend its title, it was the colonists who learned how to 'float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.'
