B is the correct answer. When looking at these answers, you have to think about whether or not this seems like something that would have been one of the goals of the women’s right movement.
With answer A, it’s unclear. This could be related to women’s rights, but considering that gender or women are not mentioned, it’s unlikely.
With answer B, it is clear that this is about gender equality, which is what specifically the women’s rights movement was fighting for. This answer is correct.
With answers C and D, it is similar to answer A. Both are improvements to equality, but are not gender or women specific, so it is unlikely that is was done by the women’s rights movement.
Answer:
In my opinion, the United States does not follow this doctrine, although there are no longer any cases of "new countries" if there is the case of strong countries, including the United States, and developing or third world countries, as there are in Latin America, where the United States has been accused of intervening:
- Support the coup d'etat of Pinochet in Chile under the government of President Nixon in 1973.
- Orchestrate the coup against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1984.
- Suppress protests in foreign countries as happened in Panama in 1964 under the mandate of President Johnson (APARICIO PINDADO, Daniel. 2016).
As well as the constant invasion of Middle Eastern countries in the search for nuclear weapons or terrorist groups that could threaten US sovereignty, as well as the recent friction with Iran.
Therefore, the inclusion of the United States as a strong country vis-à-vis other countries is undeniable and demonstrates that the Monroe doctrine (attributed to President James Monroe) is no longer applied by the country, at a time when more than ever countries should exercise their own government and be architects of its future.
Explanation:
The United States has been involved in different acts around the world that would suggest that the Monroe doctrine should only be applied when the country was a new or weak country, now that it is a strong country, it does not consider that doctrine applicable.
<h2>According to tradition, on April 21, 753 B.C., Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, found Rome on the site where they were suckled by a she-wolf as orphaned infants. According to the legend, Romulus and Remus were the sons of Rhea Silvia, the daughter of King Numitor of Alba Longa.</h2>
<h2>please mark in brain list </h2>
It don’t really it just depends
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Without a doubt, the effects of the act on Native American history over the course of the twentieth century left the Native Indians divided, hurt, and without their lands.
The Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887 was one of the major pieces of legislation in Native American history. The Act granted the power to the federal government of the United States to split the land and divide it into individual plots so people could get the land and make it work. If a Native American Indian wanted to be considered a United States citizen, it had to accept the Act.
This piece of legislation was another try to change the Indian's culture and habits, to destroy their traditions, and getting them to assume the white American culture.
This was another episode of the complicated and conflictive relationships between white colonists and Native American tribes, that started the moment colonists arrived in the Americas and founded colonies.
White people always wanted more land to settle in and exploit the resources for a big profit.
Native Indians always believed that the land belonged to them and had been inherited by their ancestors.
