Answer:
A home rule is the government of a colony, dependent country, or region by its own citizens.
Explanation:
Answer:
I believe that modern hunter-gatherer societies must be maintained and protected.
Explanation:
Modern hunter-gatherer societies have their own civilization based on concepts that should not be extinguished by the concepts of the modern world. This means that these societies have worked for years in the way they live, proving that they do not need to be adapted to the modern way of life that we are used to, on the contrary, their societies must be respected and maintained.
However, it is necessary that these societies are also protected. That's because they can be an easy target for malicious people.
The answer to this question I think is 3 Laos
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
