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
vovangra [49]
3 years ago
11

PLZ HURRY!!!!

History
1 answer:
Otrada [13]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Many observers have noted the surprising resilience of certain ideas in American history. "Liberty," the belief that individuals should live free from most external restraints, is one particularly powerful American touchstone. "Enterprise," the virtue of hard work, business acumen, and wealth accumulation, is another. The belief that all people should share these ideas has prohibited Americans from ever accepting the world as it is. The assumption that individuals will, when capable, choose these "self-evident" propositions has made the nation a force for revolution. America's foreign policy has consistently sought to remake the external landscape in its own image.

As early as the eighteenth century, New World influences helped inspire revolutionary upheavals throughout the old empires of Europe. This pattern continued in the nineteenth century as thinkers from diverse cultures studied the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to guide modern state building. During the first half of the twentieth century, American soldiers fought to undermine authoritarian regimes and revolutionize the workings of the international system. By the end of the twentieth century, American cinema, music, and fashion challenged traditional values in all corners of the globe.

Self-confidence and ignorance of the wider world fed the nation's revolutionary aspirations. These qualities also made Americans intolerant of the diversity of revolutionary experience. The imagery of the thirteen colonies' fight for independence from British rule in the late eighteenth century provided a template for acceptable foreign revolutions that became more rigid over time. The whole world had to follow the American revolutionary path. Heretical movements required repression because they offered destructive deviations from the highway of historical change.

Enthusiasm for revolution, in this sense, produced many counterrevolutionary policies. These were directed against alternative models, especially communism, that violated American definitions of "liberty" and "enterprise." In the second half of the twentieth century this paradox became most evident as the United States employed revolutionary concepts like "development" and "democratization" to restrain radical change in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. "Globalization" came to reflect the dominance of the American revolutionary model, and the repression of different approaches. Paraphrasing French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, America has forced much of the world to be free, but only on American terms.

You might be interested in
What was true about the treaty of New Echota?
Lostsunrise [7]

Answer:

A. It forbid court actions to be made by the Cherokee.

B. It allowed many Cherokee to stay in Georgia.

C. It required the Cherokee to become Christians.

D. It divided the Cherokee.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the American and French Revolution affect South Americans.
mart [117]
I think A
i am like 80 % sure
4 0
3 years ago
Why was the Berlin Conference held, and what was the result of the meeting?
cupoosta [38]
The Berlin Conference<span> of 1884–85, also known as the Congo </span>Conference<span> or West Africa </span>Conference<span>, regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Compare and contrast Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of human nature and the role government should play
svet-max [94.6K]

Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another.  This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.

John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience.  Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.

Further explanation:

Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people.  But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.

Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em>  in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War.  He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result.  Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.

John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England.  Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings.  Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.

In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way.  If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way.   Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved.    Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith.  But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke.   :-)

8 0
3 years ago
What were the effects of vagrancy laws passed by the southern states after the Civil War?
Anna11 [10]

Answer:

as far as im aware its D

Explanation:

Hope this answers your question :D

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which group or organization was not inspired by the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? A. American Indian Movement (A
    13·2 answers
  • Constantinople means "the city of Constantine."<br><br> True<br><br> False
    7·2 answers
  • Why did the United States launch a war in Afghanistan?
    11·1 answer
  • How long did it take Congress to vote for independence?
    6·2 answers
  • Refer to the map of Eurasia on page 626 in your text to answer this question. Which modern country was part of the Persian Empir
    13·2 answers
  • How did the French mark their territory
    6·1 answer
  • 1. What did Madison mean when he said, "the head [is] too large for the body?"
    8·1 answer
  • What was different about the the revival of the ku klux in the 1920s
    5·2 answers
  • Why did Major League Baseball owners support segregation by 1890?
    8·2 answers
  • In which area did the Freedmen’s Bureau have the most success for African Americans?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!