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
xenn [34]
4 years ago
9

Which conclusion is supported by the American public's shifting opinions about the Panama Canal over the course of the 20th cent

ury? A. People's points of view are unlikely to shift greatly unless their biases are first removed. B. Historians cannot determine an event's true historical context until years after it is no longer relevant. C. Even a period of only a few decades can greatly change the historical context surrounding an event. D. While people may change their political opinions, they rarely change their significant points of view.
History
2 answers:
Marrrta [24]4 years ago
7 0

C. Even a period of only a few decades can greatly change the historical context surrounding an event.

algol134 years ago
4 0
The correct answer is <span>C. Even a period of only a few decades can greatly change the historical context surrounding an event.

It showed how fast the public opinion can change. Originally Panamanians were supportive of the canal and the policies regarding it in relations to the United States, but very soon they started disagreeing with them and wanting the United States to give the canal ownership and control back to Panama who wanted to remove itself from relations with the US.</span>
You might be interested in
Would the U.S government be better if it were a more direct democracy?
blagie [28]

Answer:

I don't know...call me crazy, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea (at least sometime in the future.)  With the advent of the internet, there really is no reason why people can't have more input on legislation.  Remember, congressmen act as representatives of the people for logistical reasons.  Were voting allowed via internet, mail, or permanent polling places, the logistical roadblocks are reduced.

This country has an annoying quality where senators and representatives are elected and then inject their own personality into their voting.  They are supposed to represent the people of their district.  If 60% of the people in their district feel a certain way about an issue, why is the congressman/woman allowed to vote a different way?  Why do their personal beliefs really matter at all?  They are supposed to be voting the way their district wants regardless of what they personally believe.

I know, I know, things can be horribly complicated and the average person can't possibly understand all the issues they are voting on, but last I checked their is no intelligence requirement to be in the government...many people in governement now are dumb as a box of rocks.  They don't have to be smart to be elected, they have to be personable and have good advisors working in the background.

Imagine being able to directly vote on education issues, warfare issues, and being able to prioritize budget items.  Instead of blaming the morons in congress we would only be able to blame ourselves when things went horribly wrong.  Of course, some form of standing governement would still be needed for a lot of reasons.

Again, I know the technology is not hot enough right now to provide the secruity that would be needed, etc, but it won't be long...

3 0
3 years ago
PLEASE HELP ILL GIVE BRAINLIEST <br> can someone please help me with this question
34kurt

Answer: A

Explanation: He was

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The lapita has a very distinctive type of?
NARA [144]

Ceramics

Hope this helps!

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following statements about the Civil War is FALSE?
MrMuchimi

Answer:

The correct answer is b.Most Northeners wanted to end slavery. In fact the Mayor of New York City suggested that the city secede from the Union to show their support for their Southern brothers. Most northern states had passed ant-slavery laws, but African Americans were still treated with disdain and inherent racism. Perhaps the main reason that Northeners kind of sat on their hands regarding slavery was because of cotton. Textile mills up north could not exist without cotton, and to the north way of thinking no slavery, no cotton.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
A summary should include
Black_prince [1.1K]

Answer:

I think its the third one

Explanation: hope this helps

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What was one effect of U.S. participation in ​World War I​ on civilians?
    15·1 answer
  • Identify and explain three Geographic advantages Romans benefited from on the Italian peninsula
    15·1 answer
  • Dwight Eisenhower coined this term to describe the spread of communism.
    5·1 answer
  • Egypts empire expanded the farthest during the reign of
    11·1 answer
  • Which Of The Following Is Am Example Of A Thesis That A Historian Might Write
    7·1 answer
  • Which is requiered for the Supreme Court to reach a decision
    11·1 answer
  • What event occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989? A) A Communist group led its followers to the Square and took Mao Zedong hostag
    10·1 answer
  • IN WHAT WAYS IS THE AMERICAN POPULATION CHANGING
    8·1 answer
  • According to the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, how long may a president serve?
    7·2 answers
  • HELP MEEEEEEE!
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!