Answer:
Having more oil than water can majorly affect the country because - as we already know - oil is very damaging to the environment if mishandled, however, it brings in a pretty hefty profit. Although it brings in money, water is more important. That brings us to the answer to our question: Having more oil than water affects the way that the countries economy functions because the less water you have, the more the people of the country are effected and the more that the countries economy is damaged (this means that people are then being negatively effected and this can cause everything to fall apart).
Does this answer your question? If it doesn't make sense, I can always clarify.
Hope this helps!!
Have a nice day :)
Explanation:
Answer:
The principle is Family Resemblance.
Explanation:
Family Resemblance is understood as the idea that <em>objects are similar </em>to each other because a common feature may <em>seem a certain way because of various shared similar features which overlay one another.</em>
This is the case, most individuals tend to be able to recognize a variety of examples of chairs because they tend to have similar features even though, as the example states, not all chairs have 4 legs.
There was a confluence of elements involved.
<span>But, one thing that is routinely ignored is that a racial and religious hierarchy was entrenched in the Old Word, at the same time the Americas were colonized and the indigenous population was plummeting. Slavery was a historically accepted and prevalent institution in Europe, African and the Middle East (and elsewhere). But, what is commonly overlooked when speaking about the rise of African chattel slavery is the fact that this system had already been highly organized by Arab/Muslim society and then picked up by Europeans (adopting a racial component). They targeted sub-Saharan or Black Africans specifically for slavery and kept this practice going for many centuries. </span>
<span>I’ll even let you in on a little secret that a lot of Arabs don’t readily admit. But, the common term for Blacks (meaning, sub-Saharan Africans) is ‘abeed, the same term for slave. It is synonymous, or interchangeable in completely normal conversation. This is not a fringe term used by racists nor is it seen as a particular course term. It is mainstream. It can even be found in some news articles and in the media. Arab Muslim countries were the last in the entire world to end this AFRICAN chattel slavery system. Even today the old system of chattel slavery is still practiced by Arab-identified slave owners in places like Mauritania and Sudan. </span>
<span>There was a traditional religious component found in both Islam and Christianity, where Blacks were considered the descendants of Ham and had been cursed with Black skin and were justifiably natural slaves. </span>
<span>So, as the Europeans started colonization of the New World, they met a people that did not fit into this old racial model. While there was some attempt to enslave American Indians initially, the practice never became entrenched (for a variety of reasons, including high mortality rates from lack of immunity to Old World diseases). However, what is perpetually downplayed in the racist component of African chattel slavery. Spain outlawed Indian slavery in 1530, and the Catholic church issued the Sublimus Dei which also clarified that Indians were free and could not be enslaved. The English and French also did not have the policy to enslave Indians based solely on their race. Most Indian slaves taken during the early colonial period were from “warring tribes” and often these slaves were sent to the Indies. There was no large class of Indians slaves. In what would become the USA, they represented very small numbers and enslavement of Indians was specifically outlawed by most colonies or states rather early in American history. However, European or Arab jurisprudence clearly extended chattel slavery to Africans! They were fair game in the eyes of Europeans and Arab/Muslims. </span>
<span>The reason that Africans were taken to the Americas in large numbers, and not elsewhere, is related to the colonial system. Europeans were filling a labor shortage with the easiest population they could find for that reality: African slaves. </span>
<span>European colonies in Asia, on the other hand, would often rely on local slaves or wage-slaves (indentured laborers), and importation of Africans was not as cost effective.
</span>ΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔΔ<span>
Sorry it was a long but I had to explain the whole thing you can pick and choose what u wanna take out
</span><span>
</span>
<span>Because Athens assumed an ever-more oppressive role, demanding tribute from league members.</span>
I would say information due to the fact that you are not going to graph how many people say yes to a survey on a line graph
