Answer:
There are 5 parts of the declaration it the preamble, statement of human rights, charges against human rights, charges against the king and parliament, and the statement of separation and signatures
If this don't help you cant delete my question or something
Explanation:
This chapter, which analyses the theories of cultural action which develop from antidialogical and dialogical matrices, will make frequent reference to points presented in the previous chapters, either to expand these points or to clarify new affirmations.
I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.
Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting which they cannot transcend. Hence, each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves.
But human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. It cannot, as I stressed in chapter 2, be reduced to either verbalism or activism.
Lenin's famous statement: "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1 means that a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor adtivism, but rather with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed. The revolutionary effort to transform these structures radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and the oppressed as mere doers.
If true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action, this theory cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process. The leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated—and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.
The leaders do bear the responsibility for coordination and, at times, direction—but leaders who deny praxis to the oppressed thereby invalidate their own praxis. By imposing their word on others, they falsify that word and establish a contradiction between their methods and their objectives. If they are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot proceed without the action and reflection of others.
Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
<span>It went too far in allowing the government to gather intelligence on private conversations of US citizens.
</span>Since the Act went into effect, there has been a lot of controversy over how much leeway the government is given when it comes to wiretaps and quite a few cases where regular citizens that had nothing to do with whatever crime was being investigated have been caught up in surveillance efforts. Today, you can even point to the recent scandal regarding the revelations made about the NSA.as a result of the expanded powers given to such agencies because of the Act and the changes to the law it created.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Spanish explorer Francisco Vázquez Coronado was leading an expedition from México to modern-day Arizona's territory in 1540, trying to find the mysterious cities of Cibola when they found the Grand Canyon and traveled through the Colorado River.
It must have been a wonderful moment of discovery for the Spanish conquerors. To be in front of that majestic sightseeing, speechless, contemplating this nature's wonder never before seen or imagined for them. We could say they were in shock!
Something similar happened to me when I visited the Great City of Teotihuacan, in México. It is an impressive archeological site built by the Teotihucans in central Mexico. The Aztecas found this place abandoned in the 1400s when they were traveling from Aztlán to the Texcoco Lake, where they founded the great city of Tenochtitlan. The capital city of the Aztec Empire.
When I saw the big pyramid of the moon, I was surprised. But when I saw the huge Pyramid of the Sun, I was in shock! It was simply, extraordinary. The architectonic perfection, the symmetry, the proportions, the height. I just wondered how did these people built these magnificent pyramids and temples thousands of years ago, when they did not have the technology we have today.
