The pitiful conditions created by the Industrial Revolution gave rise to socialism, in which society owns and controls the means of production.
The trail of tears observed all of above
Answer:
Obierika represents a foil to the character of Okonkwo, his own best friend. And through the two men, we see both sides of the story and also presents a critical voice for the character of Okonkwo and his strict belief in his tradition and customs.
Explanation:
The character of <u>Obierika </u>in Chinua Achebe's <em>Things Fall Apart</em> is presented as a contrast to the character of Okonkwo. The main theme of community, belonging, and tradition revolves around the whole story while also dealing with the emergence of the British in the African nation in an attempt to "civilize" them.
Though the two characters are close friends, they seem to at times be at loggerheads. At the time of the 'sacrifice' of the adopted son Ikemefuna in <u>chapter 8</u>, Obierika did not go along with the others for which Okonkwo is angry with him. But his best friend told him <em>"If I were you, I would have stayed at home. What you have done will not please the earth. It is the kind of action for which the goddess wipes out whole families"</em>.
Again, in <u>Chapter 20</u> when the missionaries came to their village during Okonkwo's exile, Obierika also seemed to disagree with this intrusion. But unlike Okonkwo who acts impulsively, Obierika thinks before he actually does things. And it is such that when Okonkwo vehemently opposes the missionaries and their 'supposed claims of bringing change' to the people, Obierika did not disagree like his friend. he did not accept the foreigners' move but he also did not act rashly either. And when he questioned the rise of the White man's power in his village, Obierika calmly explained to him the events of the period he was exiled. The accepting manner in which Obierika tells him about how the White man said <em>"our customs are bad; and our own brothers who have taken up his religion also says that our customs are bad"</em> shows his resignation in trying to oppose the influx of the new people and change.
The government has continued to pursue antitrust prosecutions since World War II. The Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department watch for potential monopolies or act to prevent mergers that threaten to reduce competition so severely that consumers could suffer. Four cases show the scope of these efforts:
In 1945, in a case involving the Aluminum Company of America, a federal appeals court considered how large a market share a firm could hold before it should be scrutinized for monopolistic practices. The court settled on 90 percent, noting "it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-five percent would be enough, and certainly thirty-three percent is not."
In 1961, a number of companies in the electrical equipment industry were found guilty of fixing prices in restraint of competition. The companies agreed to pay extensive damages to consumers, and some corporate executives went to prison.
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a combination of firms with large market shares could be presumed to be anti-competitive. The case involved Philadelphia National Bank. The court ruled that if a merger would cause a company to control an undue share of the market, and if there was no evidence the merger would not be harmful, then the merger could not take place.
In 1997, a federal court concluded that even though retailing is generally unconcentrated, certain retailers such as office supply "superstores" compete in distinct economic markets. In those markets, the merger of two substantial firms would be anti-competitive, the court said. The case involved a home office supply company, Staples, and a building supply company, Home Depot. The planned merger was dropped.
Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had one vote, regardless of size. The states were considered equals. At the Convention, each state had one vote, even though some delegations consisted of three or four people and others only one or two.
