Many countries around the world took different decisions during wartime. Some have been more brutal and difficult than we could have imagined. But in this situation that the Armenians faced, political events also had an effect. If you really want to get the right answer, you have to turn your perspective to both sides. Because both sides see themselves as justified in this event in history. And indeed, both sides have their faults and their justifications. In 1919, two American diplomats who wanted to investigate the event impartially visited the region. Their names were Emory Niles and Arthur Sutherland, and their view of the region was that both sides were right. Among the statements they wrote, it was written that the Armenians formed gangs against the Turks and plundered the Turkish villages in the region. But they also wrote that "Turkish soldiers were displaying a bad attitude towards Armenian civilians. According to the Turks, the reason for this was that the Armenians caused unrest in the region and took part in gang actions against the Turks. So the soldiers had to take control of the area. But when we look further into the past, we see that Armenians and Turks lived in peace in the empire. Even Armenian representatives took part in the Ottoman parliament in the 19th century. The reason why 2 communities that lived in harmony are so angry with each other is that foreign countries provoke the region to annex the region. We know that in the first world war, Russia wanted to invade the region. We also know that the Russians want to include the Orthodox Armenians in the region among themselves. It would not be difficult to conclude that the Russians formed gangs from the Armenians in the region and provoked them against the Kurdish and Turkish villages in the region. If this is indeed true, we would conclude that both parties are right in their own way.
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.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo do this yourself please
One of the most revealing parts of the text is this one:
<em>The laws were designed to correct every deficiency revealed in the Lower East Side fire: for example, it required automatic sprinklers in high-rise buildings. Fire drills became mandatory in large shops. Factory doors had to be unlocked and had to swing outward.</em>
It's correct to assume that, even thought it was a tragedy, the Shirtwaist Factory Fire was the reason behind a series of measures that were adopted to prevent new disasters.
The legacy left behind after what happened is incalculable and the amount of deaths avoided after this specific disaster is very substantial considering the new safety procedures created to avoid something like that to ever happen again.
The correct answer is:
A. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire was the disaster that brought to attention the need for improved working conditions in America
