Answer:
Hi! If you are looking for the word whose meaning is defined by this sentence, I would say that the word you need is <em>exploitation</em>.
Explanation:
Let's remember that exploitation is the act of <u>making use of and benefiting from other's resources, it is the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work or abilities.</u> In this case, <em>it is exploitation because this nation or person is vulnerable</em> in some way and allow others to take advantage of their work, abilities, or any other characteristic that can be beneficial. They allow this exploitation probably because they don't have the tools to change their reality or because they don't know how or are under threat, maybe they are uneducated and don't even realize they are being used. <u>To do that to a person or to a nation is called exploitation.</u>
Answer:
Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.
But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.
Answer:
Time Capsule
Explanation:
Union: Blue Coat, Bayonet, Musket, Riding Sword, a picture of his s3xy wife, a letter, a canteen, alcohol, maybe a bible
Answer:
D
Explanation:
A clash of personality occurs when two (or more) people get engaged in conflict not over a particular issue or occurrence, but due to a fundamental incompatibility in their personalities, values, ethics, modusoperandi or their style of life.
Maneka and Larson have two contrasting approaches in work ethic, which is responsible for their conflict.
