Answer:
d improved genetic modification of food allowed for increased harvests in LDCs.
Explanation:
During the second agricultural revolution which lasted between the 17th and early 18th century, the industrial revolution was also occurring during this period.
This led to an improvement in the level of agricultural production which includes new crop rotation methods, selective breeding of domestic animals, and generally genetic modification of food in less developed areas or countries.
Hence, in this case, the correct answer is option D "improved genetic modification of food allowed for increased harvests in LDCs."
At the turn of the 20th century, the concept of “blood” took a central role in determining Native American political status and person hood. Blood discourse can be added to the long list of assaults enacted on the Native American community, put alongside boarding schools, forbidden language and culture, land loss, and poverty. During the assimilation period (1887-1934), blood quantum served as an integral means by which white people became aware of Native American people.
It is curious, however, that “blood” terminology, like “half-blood” and “full blood” are not mentioned in the 1887 General Allotment Act, also referred as the Dawes Act, that provided the broad framework for the policy of assimilation. Only in 1934 did blood became a signifier in the official definition of Indian status through the Wheeler-Howard Act. Still, much is at stake in the language of blood. Blood was part a broader strategy of elimination, a tool used to efface Native American history, identity, and geography.
The griot profession is hereditary and has long been a part of West African culture. The griots' role has traditionally been to preserve the genealogies, historical narratives, and oral traditions of their people; praise songs are also part of the griot's repertoire.
Answer: I believe the answer is C
Explanation:
tell me if wrong and brainliest plz
Well, that question has been the topic of many theologians for centuries. Here is my personal take. I think it was because that when Jesus was on the cross, He was paying the price for all humanities sin. That is why God left Jesus on the cross and didn't take him down from there. Sin needed to be punished, and Jesus took the place of mine, yours, and the whole world's.