Answer:
Explanation:
I would most prefer to live in <u>Greek </u>civilization because:
- <u>-Culture and education</u> – Greece is often cited as the cradle of culture and the civilization that gave a lot of knowledge to the modern world. Philosophy and science were developed, and so were theatre and music. It would be wonderful to enjoy life in a cultured society that gives the possibility of learning so much and exploring the universe in the most cultured society of the time.
- <u>-Democracy</u> – the Greek society put the basics of democracy as we know it today. It was the first civilization that introduced the idea that free men could vote and influence the political life of their state. It gave them freedom and power to its citizens.<u> Living in a democratic society is of great importance for all people.</u>
- <u>-Rich and fertile regio</u>n – Greece always had a wonderful position that provided plenty of goods. The sunny climate and the nearness of the sea ensure the citizens have full of vegetables, fruits, and fish. On top of that, it is a colorful region with impressive nature. <u>Even though it was complicated to travel at the time, it would be great to live in pleasant surroundings and the proximity to the sea. </u>
Lech Walesa (polish politician and labor activist)<span />
Nationalism and Imperialism are two terms that should be understood in different senses. Nationalism is based on aggressiveness in its concept. On the other hand imperialism is constructive in its concept.
Imperialism is a kind of rule that aims at bringing equality of values, beliefs, and expertise among empires and kingdoms through domination and is autocratic in nature and also sometimes monolithic in its concept. Imperialism is a kind of western undertaking that employs expansionistic views and ideas in its ideals. Nationalism on the other hand paves the way for enmity among nations. A nationalist feels that his own country is better than any other country.
According to the great thinker George Orwell, nationalism is deeply rooted in emotions and rivalry. It makes one contemptuous of the virtues possessed by other nations. Nationalism makes one intolerant towards the progress made by other nations.
Nationalism makes one think that the people belonging to one’s own country should be considered one’s equal. Such thoughts are not present the ideals of imperialism. A nationalist does not mind about the deficiencies of his country but on the contrary takes into account only its virtues.
A nationalist strives for the domination of a nation and expresses his love for the country in an aggressive way. An imperialist though creates unequal economic relationship between states yet he maintains the unequal relationships based on domination. This is a subtle difference between the two terms.
Nationalism gives importance to unity of by way of cultural background and linguistic environment. The factors of cultural background and linguistic environment are not taken into account by the imperialist to a great extent.
Answer:
The Maurya Empire was centralized by the conquest of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, and its capital city was located at Pataliputra (modern Patna). Outside this imperial center, the empire's geographical extent was dependent on the loyalty of military commanders who controlled the armed cities sprinkling it.
Explanation:
The Mauryan Empire was the first major empire which encompassed Afghanistan and Balochistan in north west to Bengal in the east and to south of the country.
Answer: Populism from the Latin word "Populus," which in translation would mean the people.
Explanation:
Similar to the notion of democracy, populism implies a rule that is in the service of the people. It is the opposite of government, which includes in its interest group a small group of people whose interests are defended, which is the case with aristocracy and plutocracy. And if they are similar synonyms, democracy today implies positive connotations in public, while populism is taken in the context of the negative.
This is because the strategy of populism is based on using the sensibilities of society, their essential life issues for political purposes. For example, it is possible to take two groups, which are separated by different antagonisms. On the one hand, it is an ordinary people and on the other a corrupt elite who argue that politics should be an expression of the will of the people