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
Bess [88]
3 years ago
6

how would you define the term "massacre"? How many people have to die in order for an event to be called a "massacre".

History
1 answer:
SpyIntel [72]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Explanation:

Massacre: an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.

“an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people” Many is of course “A large quantity”. So there we have it, certainly more than a couple but if it gets to be say 100,000, which is definitely a large number, I suspect that might be encroaching into the realms of genocide.

OK so if you happen upon a car crash and there are bodies spread over the scene, 2 from each of the 2 cars, then you would immediately spot, just by looking there were 4 people involved, but if it was a pair of coaches each with 52 passengers and they were all spread around the scene you wouldn’t be able to put a number to it by just sweeping your eyes across the mess, perhaps then it is getting to be a massacre. Could that be a useful definition? If the number slaughtered is more than you can estimate merely with a look? I also think it needs to be within a definable area, like a football field, or a stadium or perhaps a town. If it involved a whole region of a country then it becomes Genocide, maybe.

Could it be then The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of more people within a definable area than you can estimate readily with a sweep of your eyes.

Just a suggestion, so go gently on me ………….

You might be interested in
In 1588 the spanish armada was defeated by what nation
Fiesta28 [93]
I think they were defeated by the british.
6 0
3 years ago
What is the latitude or longitude for Congo and Africa
Fantom [35]

Answer:

4.0383 degrees south, 21.7587 degrees east

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
By the late 1960s, most Americans
dezoksy [38]

Answer:

They had begun to question the cost of the Vietnam War.

Explanation:

By 1969, opposition to war had rose. American cities were the scenarios of mass rallies and marches for peace and a withdrawal from Vietnam. The public was worried about the high number of casualties and the economic costs of the war.

They did not see the purpose of fighting and were increasingly distrustful of the official version told by civilian and military officials, especially after the images of North Vietnam´s Tet Offensive of 1968 revealed chaos and uncertain perspectives of victory.

6 0
2 years ago
I need help I really don’t know
Maurinko [17]

Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.

In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.

In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.

7 0
2 years ago
Compare the life of a farmer and the life of a merchant in an ancient world.Describe how both occupations contributed to the eco
Mariana [72]
Farmers provided fresh food, as they were more on the lower level on the social structure. Merchants were known to make money by selling, as known on the medium level on the social structure 
5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why did native Americans value all forms of nature so highly?
    14·1 answer
  • Suppose Bill HR612 is currently in Congress. One thing you know about this bill is that it
    13·1 answer
  • In Brown v. Board of Education, what problem did the plaintiffs have?
    5·1 answer
  • Describe the impact of proposition 13.
    14·1 answer
  • The area in which the law of demand best applies is
    11·1 answer
  • What do the locations of the fossils suggest?
    11·2 answers
  • What did most Americans understand before their country entered World War I?
    7·1 answer
  • NEED ANSWER NOW!!!!
    15·1 answer
  • Why was Tom Hanks not recognized as an official US representative in movie bridge of spies?
    8·1 answer
  • The Agreement in Munich in 1938 to give Hitler the Sudetenland was an example of
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!