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
ziro4ka [17]
3 years ago
14

The development of social welfare policy in the united states began during:

History
1 answer:
serious [3.7K]3 years ago
4 0

The development of social welfare policy in the united states began during the Great Depression

Following the great Depression, there was need for the government to intervene in alleviating the problems wrought by a depressed economy. This included providing federal aid for poor families


You might be interested in
U.S. involvement in The Vietnam War was an attempt to prevent the spread of Communism globally .
Nataliya [291]
I dunno tbhjdhdhdhrudhdhdhd
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What were the laws imposed upon the Jewish people under the nazi regime? What impact did the laws have on Jewish people?
lbvjy [14]
That there were no Jews allowed.i think
4 0
3 years ago
He graph shows air pollution in the city of London over time.
Art [367]

The air pollution in London reached its highest point around 1875.

As a result of the Industrial Revolution, London became:

  • overpopulated
  • heavily polluted
  • quite noisy

From the description of the graph, we can tell that around the year 1875, London suffered the highest air pollution shown by the graph as air pollution reached 610 micrograms per cubic meter.

In conclusion, 1875 saw the worst air pollution in London according to this graph but it is a good thing that this has improved massively as of 2016.

<em>Find out more at brainly.com/question/12048112.</em>

3 0
3 years ago
Why was the fate of the middle east up in the air toward the end of WW1
never [62]
Few events have a worst impact than the ww1. 
6 0
2 years ago
Why might violence be tempting to activists? Why might it be risky to their movements?
Neko [114]

Answer:

We agree with a number of Thaler’s points. First, he is right to question those on the outside who tell activists what to do or offer strategic or tactical advice. Local activists know their context best, and specific instructions from outside actors can place activists at great risk. People struggling under such conditions often say they learn the most from being in touch with other activists. But when activists approach scholars or practitioners for information or resources, it is crucial to make sure that a broad range of experience and evidence are publicly available and accessible. That was the purpose of a recent event hosted by the United States Institute of Peace that featured various scholarly and activist perspectives on how movements respond to repression.

Second, we appreciate how the article highlights the role of human agency in the struggle against authoritarianism and other forms of oppression. Civil resistance offers a way for marginalized and excluded groups to wage struggle using a wide range of direct-action tactics that can be used to disrupt injustices and challenge the status quo. It is more than simply an ideal or a normative preference. We also recognize that when activists seek out support or information, they decide for themselves whether the information is relevant to their context, or whether to discard it.

Third, we share his denunciation of repressive state violence targeting unarmed civilian dissenters. It is a regrettable reality that states often respond to those who challenge state power with violent repression, regardless of which methods of resistance they use. This state violence should never be normalized, nor should false moral equivalences or “both sides”-type narratives be tolerated. Outside actors should stand in solidarity with those fighting oppression and prioritize actions that protect fundamental human rights and mitigate violence targeting unarmed dissidents.

Yet we differ on other important points. First, critics often claim that nonviolence is part of a Western hegemonic discourse that reinforces the legitimacy of state violence while simultaneously encouraging oppressed people to carry the unfair burden of good behavior under crushing conditions. Discourses advocating nonviolent resistance are in no way hegemonic, nor are they Western in origin. Over the millennia, states and nonstate groups have justified violence on the basis of its necessity, used cultural relativism as a way to prevent critiques of violence, and persecuted, imprisoned, and executed those who have advocated nonviolent approaches, which threaten two hegemonic discourses—the state’s monopoly on power, and the normalcy and necessity of violence.

Nonviolent resistance has been a counterhegemonic force that challenges both of these dominant discourses. The technique was developed and embraced by people living under colonial regimes throughout the global south, as well as by marginalized and oppressed communities within the West. Despite their views that violence was preferable to passivity, practitioners such as Mohandas Gandhi and Badshah Khan saw mass civil resistance as the only way for them to challenge the violence of Western imperialism on pragmatic grounds. Over the course of the past century, the technique spread from the global south to the United States and Europe, where people fighting racism, sexism, poverty, war, authoritarianism, and economic inequality have seen the strategic value of fighting structural violence by building and wielding inclusive power from below using nonviolent resistance.

Activists from around the world continue to make arguments about the strategic utility of nonviolent resistance, without any nudging from Westerners or Western researchers. Protesters facing a massive crackdown in Baghdad attempted to maintain nonviolent discipline by shouting “Peaceful! Peaceful!” while under fire from security forces. Women in Lebanon have organized human chains to maintain nonviolent discipline in the ongoing movement there, which is now in a particularly delicate phase. Dissidents associated with the Sudanese Revolution insisted on maintaining a remarkable level of nonviolent discipline, despite bloody crackdowns attempting to throw the transition into disarray. And in Algeria, the ongoing movement there has remained both disruptive and restrained in its use of violence.

Our book, Why Civil Resistance Works, presents evidence that mass, broad-based participation is critical to movement success and that movements that rely primarily on nonviolent tactics tend to enjoy more diverse participation, which in turn yields a number of political advantages for the campaign. Updated analyses reinforce these earlier findings, and other research helps to unpack these dynamics at a more granular level.

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following categories of slave labor could not be found on plantations?
    6·1 answer
  • What was the largest battle of the american revolution?
    10·1 answer
  • Who was given the duty to write the declaration of independence?
    6·1 answer
  • Where did Christianity originate?
    13·2 answers
  • Which of these statements are false
    9·2 answers
  • Where did human beings land for the first time in the 1960s?
    7·1 answer
  • The status of ordinary citizens before the revolution?
    7·1 answer
  • Hey , i need help !
    8·2 answers
  • At what battle did the French win the hundred years war
    7·1 answer
  • What are the Icelandic political parties, and how do they compare to American parties?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!