D. Britain because Britain took over the colonies and settled and taxed the 13 colonies and the US got tired of it.
Answer:
Option A
Explanation:
A good government is one that is formed and driven by the reflection and choice of mass/citizens. This is also an alternative to support constitution because the goal for both the cases is same. Either you support constitution or you form government that is reflection and choice of its citizens both shall work in direction of serving the nation/citizens.
Hence, option A is correct
Booker T. Washington believed that blacks should accommodate to racial prejudice and focus on self-improvement through hard work. The quote mentions the importance of "merit" or hard work in determining the value of a person in society. This therefore supports his idea that blacks should focus on an economic skill and not focus on the separation and prejudice in society.
In Washington's famous "Atlanta Compromise" speech, he outlines his theory of accommodation. He essentially argued that blacks must find their place in society, a place that whites did not want to occupy. In doing this you accept the segregation law by achieving economic success in your area. He believed in vocational studies for blacks to find their economic success. In his speech he refers to the country as a hand and that each group were the fingers. African Americans could successfully work to support the hand while not interfering with other groups.
I would say D. sorry if not.
Answer:
To begin, we need to first grasp the basic terminology relevant to the study of religious minorities. Religious minorities are known as dhimmīs, short for ahl al-dhimmah, or people of the dhimmah, a term that later became synonymous with the People of the Book.[4] The original meaning of al-dhimmah, however, meant protection, and it was often short for dhimmat–Allah wa-rasūlih, or the “protection of God and His Prophet.”[5] In short, the concept originally had a divine connotation, or a meaning that was directly related to the power of God. However, the concept soon morphed into a technical legal term with the progression of classical scholarship, and it consequently lost its transcendent dimension.[6] As a result, ahl al-dhimmah, or people of the dhimmah, has become a legal term and not a reference to the recipients of divine protection. It is important to discuss the etymology of the word because it demonstrates the significance of the people of the dhimmah who, at the very root of it all, are people who were to be protected on behalf of God and His Prophet ﷺ – an immense responsibility. This status is awarded to People of the Book (who according to many scholars includes Zoroastrians and others) who agree through contract to pay the jizyah, or poll-tax, in exchange for that protection.[7] In sum, the formation of the people of the dhimmah was rooted in religious minorities paying a tax that exempted them from military service. Much more nuance can be embedded within all of these terms that are sometimes highly contested among scholars, but considering the limited scope of this paper, we will move forward to address the larger picture at hand.
The power of the Muslim state was dependent on its ability to provide two precious resources to its people: security and justice.[8] Christians and Jews and other minorities were not technically citizens of the Muslim state; they were considered outsiders under the protection of the state, leading to the title of dhimmah, or protected people.[9] Their protection was guaranteed in a number of ways: by providing them with legal autonomy – meaning they could maintain their religious practices without interference – and protection during war. That said, there have no doubt been incidents throughout history in which that protection was threatened or revoked and the Muslim ruler engaged in persecution of religious minorities.[10] The fact remains, however, that there was never widespread systematic persecution of Christians, for example, in the Islamic world as there was in the late Roman Empire.[11] And the hostile circumstances that did occasionally arise, were not due to Islamic legislation per se, but were rather a result of an amalgam of social, political, and economic circumstances. So while Christians historically at times suffered at the hands of Muslims, it was almost never a result of their being Christian, or their beliefs, but a result of various factors related to the pursuit of power.[12]
Explanation:
