Answer:
C. The appropriate balance between observing social injustice and seeking social justice.
Explanation:
This issue is strongly debated by modern-day sociologists, because our social order seems to be innately unjust. There are people who start from worse premises than others, there are people who earn less than others and people who will earn more and there is no society without inequality.
<em>This inequality is considered "social injustice" by modern-day sociologists and philosophers, whereas other voices claim that this kind of "injustice" is not something which can be corrected. </em>
<em>The main idea is that there will always be inequalities in any given society. </em>However, <u>the big question is how big these inequalities should be and how much state interference should there be to diminish these inequalities? </u>Moreover, even with state interference, could inequalities ever be wiped out?
This is what modern-day sociologists are trying to answer, in order to build better societies without imposing too many things on individuals who are faring better than others just by birth.
Cancel culture hasn't taken a huge effect on history other than "canceling" figures such as Christopher Columbus. Multiple monuments have been toppled or graffitied on that represent the dark spots in history, such as confederate leaders, colonizers, etc. Though the context in history books have not changed as much. Removing history from the books is no the responsibility of cancel culture. Cancel culture could be a possible threat to learning true history and how we came to be. We must learn true history to not make the same mistakes we did in the past. History will repeat itself.
Answer:
reasons English settlers came to colonies in America
Explanation:
Many variations of the Christian faith were appearing in Europe. With the rise of the new denominations, there was also a raise of intolerance. The New World, at first, had nothing and it was inviting new people. It was a cheaper way to have a chance do be free, at least religiously.
One option can be a full military campaign based on sending soldiers to take Japanese territory. One advantage is that the number of killed civilians would be drastically lower while another would be that nuclear weaponry would not be used and would not destroy the environment. Disadvantage would be the high amount of soldier casualties and another can be possibly a very lengthy war effort.
Another option could be a complete blockade of Japan. Since it's an island, it would be possible to blockade it from all sides and wait for Japanese people to surrender since they wouldn't be able to sustain for long without importing things. One advantage would be preventing the death of Japanese civilians and preventing deaths of US troops. Disadvantages would be that might actually endure hardships and still wouldn't surrender, and another could be that they might fight like guerrillas and attack ships and American troops
Another option can be an allied assault in which the US could attack together with Soviets and split Japan like Germany. Advantage would be reduced amount of killed Japanese civilians and reduced amount of killed American troops. The disadvantage could be that a split Japan would be problematic like split Germany was because of Communism, and another could be that it would enable soviets to spread their influence even more throughout Asia
Fourth option could be having a demonstration of the power of nuclear weaponry somewhere safe. The United States could show what they are capable of in order to scare Japan into surrender. One advantage is that Japanese civilians would not be harmed and another can be that they would still show the world how strong the United States bombs are. One disadvantage could be that Japanese people might still not surrender since there were many who wanted to stay in the war even after the two nukes, and another disadvantage could be that Japan might began preparing for nuclear warfare since they would now know what awaits them
The best possible option could be as a recommendation the naval blockade. If a naval blockade was combined with bombardment of strategic military areas then Japan would inevitably surrender even though it would take a few months at least. It would cost a lot but it would save the lives of many people who didn't have to suffer because of their government.
Answer:
Explanation:
Albert Einstein lived from 1879 to 1955.
He passed away at the age of 76.
