Answer:
I dont know if this is an optional choice question if so this is probabaly wrong on the ABCD scale so you can report this but otherwise if not:
People make up there mind with the knowledge of there own opinions and what <em>is</em><em> </em>factual to them so to change there minds is because it is based on other peoples opinions and this makes sense ( the easiest way to explain it is as if its a filter going through this persons brain and them identifying if this is factual to them or not in <em>their</em> opinion) to them so, after they go through this process of <em>proving</em> this other information that they held so kindly to there truth, <em>wrong</em> this suddenly changes there mind. By what they think is factual enough to believe <em>at least to them. </em><em>It</em><em> </em><em>can</em><em> </em><em>be</em><em> </em><em>diffe</em><em>rent</em><em> </em><em>for</em><em> </em><em>everyone</em><em> </em><em>else</em><em>.</em><em> </em>
Answer:
Many government officials felt that Native Americans should be assimilated into America's mainstream culture before they became enfranchised. The Dawes Act of 1887 was passed to help spur assimilation. It provided for the dissolution of Native American tribes as legal entities and the distribution of tribal lands among individual members (capped at 160 acres per head of family, 80 acres per adult single person) with remaining lands declared "surplus" and offered to non-Indian homesteaders. Among other things, it established Indian schools where Native American children were instructed in not only reading and writing, but also the social and domestic customs of white America.
The Dawes Act had a disastrous effect on many tribes, destroying traditional culture and society as well as causing the loss of as much as two-thirds of tribal land. The failure of the Dawes Act led to change in U.S. policy toward Native Americans. The drive to assimilate gave way to a more hands-off policy of allowing Native Americans the choice of either enfranchisement or self-government.
Answer:
<h3>If only one person has the authority to rule, then no one else, even members of government, may have authority, so divine right undermines civil society.</h3><h3 />
Explanation:
- The statement that best explains an enlightenment position on the divine right to rule is "If only one person has the authority to rule, then no one else, even members of government, may have authority, so divine right undermines civil society."
- If we look from an enlightenment position, authority and power should be derived from reason as it does not believe in divine right theory of power and legitimacy.
- It believes that rights and liberties of the people are infringed upon and other forms of rational democratic processes are undermined when only one person takes control over the whole power.
Mass consumerism and and lots of brand name stuff people buying everything
