French and Spanish differed most in their terms of why they colonized lands. France did it because they wanted to sail westward to Asia, but instead they colonized land here in North America because France couldn't get to Asia.
Spaim colonzied lands because they wanted to richest European country with the most land, and because they wanted to find highly priced European goods such as tea, gems, silk, etc.
On October 6, 1908, the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary announces its annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dual provinces in the Balkan region of Europe formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire.
Both are pro-factory business and are willing to use government dollars to help infrastructure needed to aid that business, such as canals, railroads, telegraphs, etc.
Both are more likely to support immigrant populations as they are cheaper to employ and will help fill the needed void for factory work.
Both groups were anti-temperance groups. Neither supported a growing push toward moral controls of individuals within the country in particular those connected to the side effects of industrialization.
The Homo Sapiens' lighter, less muscled body type led to its success because this made the species to be more agile and needed fewer calories to survive.
<h3>How does the Homo Sapiens body differ from other hominid species and other animals?</h3>
In general the Homo Sapiens is smaller if compared to other animals such as tigers, elephants, etc. who seem to be more fierce than humans. Moreover, if compared to other hominis such as gorillas, the human body is less muscles.
Despite this, humans have a bigger brain and seem to have better skills at surviving than other species.
<h3>How is this possible?</h3>
This is possible because this type of body made humans to be more agile as they could move faster. Moreover, a smaller body implied humans did not need as much food, water, etc. to survive.
Learn more about the Homo Sapiens in: brainly.com/question/10169640
#SPJ1
Mental illness has always been subject to stigma and discrimination. There are a number of studies on public attitudes towards people with mental illness. Long-term studies, however, examining changes over time are scarce.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine potential changes concerning attitudes between 1976 and 2014 in Vilhelmina, a community in northern Sweden.
METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent out to a random sample of 500 adults aged 18-70 years. The same questionnaire has previously been used in 1976 and 2003.
RESULTS: The attitudes towards people with mental illness have not generally become more positive over the years. In 2014 almost a quarter of the population still think that "people with mental illness commit violentX acts more than others". Even more people in 2014 than in 1976 agree to the statement that "mental illness harms the reputation more than a physical disease" (77.2% versus 52.8%). People with low educational level have more negative views than people with higher education. Younger respondents, < 20 years, had a more positive view than the older age groups. Almost 70% of the respondents would advise someone with psychological problems to seek a psychiatrist but only 23% of the respondents would follow their own advice. Psychotherapy has been and is still highly appreciated. As regards medication the perception is more critical, but there has been a significant change, however, to a more positive attitude towards medication since 1976.
CONCLUSION: Attitudes towards mental illness and mentally ill people have not changed substantially over time.
