Answer: We have nothing to fear but fear itself
Explanation:
Hollywood's portrayal of an archaeologist has several stereotypes that aren't really true, for example, that archaeology is all about finding treasure and by treasure they refer to tangible things that can be picked up and sold, and that isn´t accurate, since real archaeologist try to answer more in depth questions like: When was this made, who made it, what where they like, etc. etc. Another myth is that you have to go to an exotic country like Egypt or Israel to do archaeology (as portrayed by movies like Indiana Jones or the Mummy), but really, there is a lot of things an archaeologist can do in the US. Every time a new road is made, a team of archaeologist are sent to make sure there isn't anything culturally relevant (like Native American sites) that could be destroyed with the development.
My opinion of an archaeologists work has been modified in a good way, I now perceive that it is a really interesting career path and not as dangerous as I initially thought, due to Hollywood's influence.
Answer:
In the late 19th century, there was also growing support for the idea that the United States had a special mission to lift up "backward" people around the world. Mainstream Protestant denominations established religious missions in Africa and Asia, and by 1890 there were 500 missions in China.
The cotton gin, since to grow more cotton, planters used more slave labor
Best answer among those choices: a. He was seen by some leaders as an anticommunist bulwark.
Details/context:
The other answers are not correct, so the "anticommunist bulwark" answer is the best available. There was some of that feeling in Europe's western democracies at that time. However, the bigger factor was simply that Britain wasn't ready to confront Germany and go to war.
An article by Dr. G. Bruce Strang of Brandon University, in the journal, <em>Diplomacy and Statecraft </em>(September 2008), explains:
- <em>The British government's appeasement of fascism in the 1930s derived not only from economic, political, and strategic constraints, but also from the personal ideologies of the policy makers. Widespread guilt about the terms of the Versailles Treaty and tensions with France created sympathy for German revisionism, but the Cabinet properly recognized that Nazi Germany represented the gravest threat to peace in the 1930s. Fear of war and the recognition that Britain would have to tolerate peaceful change underlay attempts to appease the dictators, culminating in the Munich agreement in September 1938. ... While most of the British elite detested communism, anti-communist views did not govern British policy; security considerations required Soviet support in Eastern Europe, and Britain and France made a determined effort to secure Soviet support for the Peace Front.</em>
