Because it is different then all the other continents are defined
I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
They are alike insofar that they both deal with with people from minorities and and the discrimination against people who were not of European descent. In Mendez v. Westminster it was about Mexican American people while in the Magnuson Act it was about the Chinese American population and discrimination against them.
Black people were
hope this helped :)
alisa202
<span>families in rome were paterfamilias . this means that the father's authority was absolute. As long as the father was alive , he controlled all the property for the children and his wife . The father could even go as far as whipping his children, selling them into slavery, or even killing them if they did not obey his wishes. After the death of the father, the eldest son would take the role of the head of the family.</span>⊆δβΕνξζΣ<span>
</span>
<span>hope this helps
</span>
