The record of European expansion contains pages as grim as any in history. The African slave trade—begun by the Africans and the Arabs and turned into a profitable seaborne enterprise by the Portuguese, Dutch, and English—is a series of horrors, from the rounding up of the slaves by local chieftains in Africa, through their transportation across the Atlantic, to their sale in the Indies.
American settlers virtually exterminated the native population east of the Mississippi. There were, of course,
exceptions to this bloody rule. In New England missionaries like John Eliot (1604-1690) did set up little bands of “praying Indians,” and in Pennsylvania relations between the Quakers and Native Americans were excellent. Yet the European diseases, which could not be controlled, together with alcohol, did more to exterminate the Native Americans than did fire and sword.
Seen in terms of economics, however, the expansion of Europe in early modern times was more complex than simple “exploitation” and “plundering.” There was, in dealing with the native populations, much giving of “gifts” of nominal value in exchange for land and goods of great value. The almost universally applied mercantilist policy kept money and manufacturing in the home country. It relegated the colonies to producing raw materials—a role that tended to keep colonies of settlement relatively primitive and economically dependent.
Answer:
Sexual reproduction
Explanation:
Sexual reproduction is defined as the process in which male gamete combine with female gamete to form a new organism.
The given example is a type of sexual reproduction as it involves two different sexes a male poplar tree and a female poplar tree, and pollens from male poplar tree transfers to the sex cells on a female poplar tree result in the process of fertilization.
Hence, the correct answer is "Sexual reproduction".
Answer:
yes
Explanation:
in 7000 BC the Dravidians migrated to the Indus River Valley
Answer: The comparison of Nicholas II and Vladimir Lenin
Explanation Both the leaders were hungry for power and came onto to become leaders by promising good for the people but the similarity didn't catch one's eye but how different to each historical figure was has been highlighted many a time.
- Nicholas II was czar and hence being born into a royal family made him an obvious leader whereas Lenin gained prominence in the party and came into power thus.
- Lenin had the willingness to lead Russia used the Bolshevik party to do so, however the Tsar was happy to be with his family and pets and not a bit interested in leadership.
- Nicholas II and his entire family were assassinated whereas Lenin died of natural causes way later.
- Lenin was the more brutal of the two and used his power to get what he wanted even if it meant torturing or murdering. here Nicholas made some concessions.
- The military responsibility was on Nicholas II during his regime but when Lenin took over he would delegate it.
Finally, none of them actually cared for the poor, the oppressed were further in distress when these two came to power.
