Answer:
Below:
Explanation:
In the time of the Spanish American war, a lot of things were going on that could influence or fuel public opinion to go to war with Spain, there was an exaggerated form of journalism called yellow journalism which helped shape American opinion in this era, and often the paper promoted exaggerated stories, this journalism wrote about things such as a letter called the de Lôme’s letter, which an opinion about the Spanish involvement in Cuba and US President McKinley’s diplomacy was shared to the U.S. public. The public was enraged and to fuel it, even more, there was an accident concerning the USS Maine, which was a ship sent to protect interests in Cuba.
The ship exploded from a supposed bomb from a board consensus, but wasn’t discovered until later, that it was an accident aboard the ship, the ship sank quickly and most of the crew was killed, this and the yellow journalism fueled public opinion.
However, in this scenario that seems either black and white especially in the context of, if the U.S. annexation of the Philippines was right or not, there seems to be one answer, either the U.S. should have annexed them or not. But it could be argued from each side with equal validity which is why it is best to not cherry-pick reasons to support arguments which is an already made decision, rather than a scientific consensus where opinion is an emergent truth after a repeatable and falsifiable statement.
Two perspectives that will be here will be politics, the distribution of power, and then psychology, which deals with how individuals think about themselves and others.
Hope it helps....
It's Muska
<span>This is more of a history question, but the answer you're looking for is Justinian I. Great leader but terrible with money.</span>
Answer:
In the first place, it must be said that despite his immense intellectual contributions and his deep analysis of 19th century capitalism, Charles Marx didn´t leave any book or writing outlining how a communist society would look like. He only wrote once that in communism, every person will go from receiving according to their capacity to receiving according to their needs. This is a very vague idea. So, is Cuba true to Marx? It´s hard to say. Paramount leader Fidel Castro built a Communist Party and a communist state following the Soviet model. In orthodox Marxist practice, the government is the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the workers. What we have actually seen in Cuba is a dictatorship of Fidel Castro and his brother Raúl Castro, in which they and a small elite of top party, state and military officials hold power exclusively.
Prosperity in Cuba? Definitely no. The Cuban experiment is a failure after 60 years of communist rule; the Cuban economy is not dynamic, it is dominated by the higly ineffective state-run mammoths, many Cubans live in nearly-poverty, food rationing continues, it is tecnologically backward. No democratic freedoms. Most young people want to emigrate and settle in the US or elsewhere. The traditional Soviet-like economic model, a command economy, is a system that can´t create wealth and can´t lead to prosperity because its ideological foundations are wrong; only an economy based on a free-market and private enterprise can generate and sustain wealth. The American embargo is usually blamed by Cuban leader as the main reason for this situation, but Cuba can import technology from other countries, trade with them and get investments. So, why does it continue to lag behind?
Explanation:
Answer:(:
Explanation:
displaced rural workers migrated to find jobs
