Answer:
Throughout the 18thcentury, America developed a unique system of government with revolutionary ideals and developed a national American identity. With the emergence of new ideas and new political rights, a growing sense of a unique American identity grew, one that had never been seen in the world before. These ideas were also spurred on by the British rule that was heavily laid on the colonists.The colonists embraced a new identity that helped fuel their resistance against Britain. In the early 1700s, the British government adopted a policy of “salutary neglect” for the colonies, which gave Americans freedom to develop their own political systems, an essential part of their identity. These political systems developed included ideas and rights like the majority adopted a political institution that gave voting rights to white men.
Explanation:hope this helped
The Rise of Dictators<span>The US wanted to spread awareness of a democratic government around the world. This backfired and Europe and Asia adopted an antidemocratic government. Dictators arose across may nations. Fascism was developed, the belief of a nation was more important than the individual, expanding territory, and a strong military. France had Benito Mussolini. Communist also became popular in Russia, who everybody feared and lead by Lenin. Russia was dictated by Joseph Stalin who tolerated no opposition. Germany hated the Allies after WWI so they had a dictatorship too, being led by Adolf Hitler. Japan was in a crisis as well and their solution was to seize territory and they did, following nationalistic beliefs.</span>
Answer:
Sí, considero que Puerto Rico es uno de esos países, ya que es un territorio no incorporado de Estados Unidos,y también las Islas Vírgenes de los Estados Unidos, que es hoy en día considerada una colonia.
Explanation:
El objetivo de la enmienda era el de otorgar poderes extraordinarios al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América sobre la soberanía de Cuba.
Por lo tanto, existe directa o indirectamente una forma de dominación similar.
20 square miles
Have a great day
Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
