Correlation is not causation is my immediate reaction.
To be more in depth, this is a silly oversimplification that ignores increased use of drugs and the general problems that go along with the war on drugs.
<span>The second listed answer shown as option c ie "They were dirty, crowded, and unhealthy". We have to remember that many immigrants historically were fleeing their homelands because they were near starvation and desperately poor. They mostly would not have been able to pay more money for a better quality level of travel accommodation.</span>
Answer:
Austria and russia declared war on france- the radicals became increasingly angry
The assembly dissolved- the national convention was created
Radicals controlled the national convention-french monarchy was abolished
Explanation:
Answer:
A) The natives would have been wiped out by smallpox and other European diseases anyway, since they had no immunity
Explanation:
Even if the Europeans were not cruel and aggressive toward the native populations of the Americas, the end result wouldn't have been much different. The reason for this is that the majority of the deaths of the Native Americans came from the European diseases, as their immune system was not able to cope with them. Yes, there were lot of deaths caused by wars, torture, and forced labor, but compared to the deaths caused by diseases they comprise a very small percentage. The Europeans didn't wanted to wipe out the native populations at all, as their plan was to use them as labor force on their plantations, but that didn't came to be, as the diseases they brought with them had an effect similar to the one of the plague in Europe.
Did Robert McNamara struggle with Vietnam inspiring his time at the World Bank?
How does the trend affect the economic growth of Vietnam in the short run?
