1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
almond37 [142]
3 years ago
13

Describe the democracy created Cleisthenes.

History
1 answer:
denpristay [2]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:In the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or “rule by the people” (from demos, “the people,” and kratos, or “power”). It was the first known democracy in the world.

You might be interested in
Based on the Hagia Sophia's history, location, cultural and religious significance, what decision do you think is fair to make o
ra1l [238]
I think it should correctly serve the significance to prove to people that religious things should be untouched.
6 0
1 year ago
Name all the naturalist writers
RSB [31]
Émile Zola.
Theodore Dreiser.
Frank Norris.
Edith Wharton
Stephen Crane.
7 0
3 years ago
What was one advantage of colonists living close together in New England?
Setler [38]

Answer:

B. It helped improve commerce.

Explanation:

One advantage of colonists living close together in New England was, it helped improve commerce.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Explain what gave other Europeans the courage to begin fighting against their own oppressive leaders.
yan [13]
This chapter, which analyses the theories of cultural action which develop from antidialogical and dialogical matrices, will make frequent reference to points presented in the previous chapters, either to expand these points or to clarify new affirmations.

I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.

Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting which they cannot transcend. Hence, each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves.

But human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. It cannot, as I stressed in chapter 2, be reduced to either verbalism or activism.

Lenin's famous statement: "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1 means that a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor adtivism, but rather with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed. The revolutionary effort to transform these structures radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and the oppressed as mere doers.

If true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action, this theory cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process. The leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated—and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.

The leaders do bear the responsibility for coordination and, at times, direction—but leaders who deny praxis to the oppressed thereby invalidate their own praxis. By imposing their word on others, they falsify that word and establish a contradiction between their methods and their objectives. If they are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot proceed without the action and reflection of others.

Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.

Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
5 0
3 years ago
Does any one know this answer but
yarga [219]
Country c earn the highest income through its export
4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Help us please plzzzzzzzz
    13·1 answer
  • Another advantage the British had were thinkers such as Adam Smith who made huge strides in figuring out how their economy worke
    5·2 answers
  • How did migration and immigration change american society in the 1970's
    10·1 answer
  • How long did it take to build the great wall of china?
    11·1 answer
  • To liberate a nation means to put it under the control of another country.
    13·1 answer
  • What was unique about the declaration of independence?​
    13·2 answers
  • What strategy did the NAACP use to try to end segregation?
    7·1 answer
  • A canceled US Treasury check for the purchase of
    5·1 answer
  • Instruction
    13·2 answers
  • Choose the correct answer.
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!