<span>The Puritans separated from the
churches in their local parishes where preaching was viewed as
inadequate, hiring their own lecturers who were well-versed in reform
theology. These lecturers were prosecuted by the monarch and Church of
England officials. The last straw may have been when King Charles I
dissolved Parliament in 1629. This dissolution prevented Puritan leaders
from working within the system to effect change and left them
vulnerable to persecution. Moderate Puritans chartered the Massachusetts
Bay Colony in the same year. The New World represented both a refuge
from persecution and an opportunity to establish a “Zion in the
wilderness.” Puritans imagined their migration to the New World mirrored
the Biblical story of Exodus.
Between 1629 and 1640, over 20,000 men, women and children left
England to settle permanently in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the
Americas. When Parliament was re-established in 1640, migration dropped
drastically.</span>
Well when i think of dictatorships i think of Kim jong nun so here is what i would put Kim Jong-un is North Korea’s current dictator and the third generation Kim to rule the country, following the death of his father Kim Jong-il in 2011. As Supreme Leader (many dictators do not call themselves dictators), he follows the political regimen of the Workers’ Party of Korea and has heavily focused on the country’s nuclear weapons program over the wellbeing of North Korean citizens. Forty percent of the nation, which is about 24 million people, lives below the poverty line
While both Greek and Romans were pretty ethnocentric by modern standards, the Romans assimilated far more people into their institutional lives.
Many non-Greeks adopted Gteek lifestyles, language and habits after the age of Alexander, but the cross-pollination was more frequently cultural than political. Cleopatra might have dressed like an Egyptian queen and patronized the Egyptian gods, but she wouldn't have had Egyptian generals or Egyptian judges. The Greeks tended to settle into the cultures they occupied like the British in India: remaining separate from and believing themselves superior to the people around them, even while encouraging the 'natives' to adopt their culture habits.
Romans did a much more thorough job assimilating the peoples they conquered. Non-Romans could and did become citizens, even from very early times. This started with neighboring groups like the Latins, but eventually extend to the rest of Italy and later to the whole empire. Eventually there would be "Roman" emperors of Syrian, British, Spanish, Gallic, Balkan, and North African descent Farther down the social scale the mixing was much more complete (enough to irritate many Roman traditionalists). This wasn’t just a practical accommodation, either — when emperor Claudius allowed Gauls into the Roman Senate he pointed out that by his time the Romans had been assimilating former enemies since the days of Aeneas.
<span>It did in fact double, it was a major time period especially where it was mainly war times. After the wars, families became thrilled to see their loved ones home so they started families.. It just kept growing and growing.</span>
Answer:
It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.
