Answer:
D.
Explanation:
he owned a restaurant and refused to serve African Americans even though the law said he had to.
Answer: A
Explanation:
During his reign, Tutankhamun accomplished little. However, his powerful advisers restored the traditional Egyptian religion, which had been set aside by his father, Akhenaten, who led the "Amarna Revolution."
He refers to his subordinate statement, he did not take the decisions, he only obeyed them. The moral implications of the policies of President Van Buren (and his predecessor Andrew Jackson) did not make those orders easy. But as a subordinate and not popularly elected, I had to obey them. Finding the best conditions for the Cherokee people was all he could do. In his instructions to the militia, he reminded them that any act of cruelty would become "an aberration to the generous sympathies of the American people" (many of whom, like John Quincy Adams, were against the transfer, blaming Southern politicians and the land usurpers ").
Answer:
Explanation:At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.
In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.
What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.
