The correct answer is "none of the above". Mark Twain's "War Prayer" poem stated that there is a part in people´s prayer which they implicitly wish for but do not mention, which is the desire of the destruction and suffering of their enemies. This poem was written as a response to the Spanish-American War.
What the poem emphasizes in are the consequences that result for nations submitted to conflicts, which are al the hardships the people are left with after the war is over.
It should be noted that the impact of World War II was destruction to the world's population.
World War II can be regarded as a global war which was recorded as the deadliest military conflict in history.
During this war there was;
- deliberate genocide
- massacres
- mass-bombings
- disease
- starvation.
Therefore, World War II was destruction to the world's population.
Learn more about World War II here
brainly.com/question/15547500
This can be argued both ways.
<u>Good</u>: Lincoln's vetoing of the Wade Davis Bill ensured that the process of allowing the Confederate states to rejoin the Union would not be as difficult. The Wade Davis Bill called for a majority vote by Confederate citizens in order to rejoin the Union. At this time, a vote like this could have gone very wrong as numerous states would not have the votes necessary to rejoin the Union. Since Lincoln vetoed this bill, it never happened, probably saving the Union a significant amount of problems.
<u>Bad: </u>Radical Republicans probably saw this as bad, as they felt Lincoln's "Ten Percent Plan" let the Confederate states of too easy. The Radical Republicans wanted the Wade Davis Bill to ensure that the Confederate states would be loyal to the Union from now on. However, when Lincoln vetoed this bill, many Radical Republicans felt that the Confederates would allowed to join the Union again without much punishment.
Answer:
C. The appropriate balance between observing social injustice and seeking social justice.
Explanation:
This issue is strongly debated by modern-day sociologists, because our social order seems to be innately unjust. There are people who start from worse premises than others, there are people who earn less than others and people who will earn more and there is no society without inequality.
<em>This inequality is considered "social injustice" by modern-day sociologists and philosophers, whereas other voices claim that this kind of "injustice" is not something which can be corrected. </em>
<em>The main idea is that there will always be inequalities in any given society. </em>However, <u>the big question is how big these inequalities should be and how much state interference should there be to diminish these inequalities? </u>Moreover, even with state interference, could inequalities ever be wiped out?
This is what modern-day sociologists are trying to answer, in order to build better societies without imposing too many things on individuals who are faring better than others just by birth.
