All categories

3 years ago

What do i need to know

History

1 answer:

mafiozo [28]3 years ago

3 0

Explanation:

why the world war 1 happend. why did the world war 1 start. how many people were involved in the war. where was the setting and place the war occured. how long did the war take to end. time rangement between start and finish of the world war 1. who lasted the longest in the war. who fought between each other during the war. really hope this help

You might be interested in

What did Hanibal accomplish during his campaign in Italy?

horrorfan [7]

Answer:

While the conflict would rage across the Mediterranean world, victory in Italy was Hannibal's sole objective. To achieve it, he marched the bulk of his army in Iberia across southern Gaul (present-day France) and, famously, over the Alps into the Roman heartland. ... Romans fought wars until decisively won.

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which beliefs did the Sumerians hold?

shtirl [24]

Answer: The answer is D.

Explanation:

D. Powerful gods controlled everything.

5 0

3 years ago

The general public responded to the threat or the influenza epidemic with _____. It responded to the challenge of labor disputes

mezya [45]

Answer:

violence, strikes, deportations.

Explanation:

The general public responded to the threat or the influenza epidemic with violence. It responded to the challenge of labor disputes with strikes and to racial tensions with deportations.

Spanish flu occurred in 1918 and it was the most serious pandemic in the 20th century. It was caused by the H1N1 virus that birds carry.

No one was really sure where the virus came from but it spread really fast between the age of 1918 and 1919. The virus had more than 500 million victims all around the world. Around 50 million people died on the global basis and more than half a million American citizens.

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

the native americans and settlers had different ways of life. tell me how the native americans used the land and how settlers us

Ostrovityanka [42]

Answer:

During the colonial period, Native Americans had a complicated relationship with European settlers. They resisted the efforts of the Europeans to gain more of their land and control through both warfare and diplomacy. But problems arose for the Native Americans, which held them back from their goal, including new diseases, the slave trade, and the ever-growing European population in North America.

In the 17th century, as European nations scrambled to claim the already occupied land in the “New World,” some leaders formed alliances with Native American nations to fight foreign powers. Some famous alliances were formed during the French and Indian War of 1754–1763. The English allied with the Iroquois Confederacy, while the Algonquian-speaking tribes joined forces with the French and the Spanish. The English won the war, and claimed all of the land east of the Mississippi River. The English-allied Native Americans were given part of that land, which they hoped would end European expansion—but unfortunately only delayed it. Europeans continued to enter the country following the French and Indian War, and they continued their aggression against Native Americans. Another consequence of allying with Europeans was that Native Americans were often fighting neighboring tribes. This caused rifts that kept some Native American tribes from working together to stop European takeover.

Native Americans were also vulnerable during the colonial era because they had never been exposed to European diseases, like smallpox, so they didn’t have any immunity to the disease, as some Europeans did. European settlers brought these new diseases with them when they settled, and the illnesses decimated the Native Americans—by some estimates killing as much as 90 percent of their population. Though many epidemics happened prior to the colonial era in the 1500s, several large epidemics occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries among various Native American populations. With the population sick and decreasing, it became more and more difficult to mount an opposition to European expansion.

Another aspect of the colonial era that made the Native Americans vulnerable was the slave trade. As a result of the wars between the European nations, Native Americans allied with the losing side were often indentured or enslaved. There were even Native Americans shipped out of colonies like South Carolina into slavery in other places, like Canada.

These problems that arose for the Native Americans would only get worse in the 19th century, leading to greater confinement and the extermination of native people. Unfortunately, the colonial era was neither the start nor the end of the long, dark history of treatment of Native Americans by Europeans and their decedent’s throughout in the United States.

Native Americans in Colonial America

Whether through diplomacy, war, or even alliances, Native American efforts to resist European encroachment further into their lands were often unsuccessful in the colonial era. This woodcut shows members of the Cheyenne nation conducting diplomacy with settlers of European descent in the 1800s.

Explanation:

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What four things should you look for when analyzing sources in history?

skad [1K]

When you analyze a primary source, you are undertaking the most important job of the historian. There is no better way to understand events in the past than by examining the sources--whether journals, newspaper articles, letters, court case records, novels, artworks, music or autobiographies--that people from that period left behind.

Each historian, including you, will approach a source with a different set of experiences and skills, and will therefore interpret the document differently. Remember that there is no one right interpretation. However, if you do not do a careful and thorough job, you might arrive at a wrong interpretation.

In order to analyze a primary source you need information about two things: the document itself, and the era from which it comes. You can base your information about the time period on the readings you do in class and on lectures. On your own you need to think about the document itself. The following questions may be helpful to you as you begin to analyze the sources:

1. Look at the physical nature of your source. This is particularly important and powerful if you are dealing with an original source (i.e., an actual old letter, rather than a transcribed and published version of the same letter). What can you learn from the form of the source? (Was it written on fancy paper in elegant handwriting, or on scrap-paper, scribbled in pencil?) What does this tell you?

2. Think about the purpose of the source. What was the author's message or argument? What was he/she trying to get across? Is the message explicit, or are there implicit messages as well?

3. How does the author try to get the message across? What methods does he/she use?

4. What do you know about the author? Race, sex, class, occupation, religion, age, region, political beliefs? Does any of this matter? How?

5. Who constituted the intended audience? Was this source meant for one person's eyes, or for the public? How does that affect the source?

6. What can a careful reading of the text (even if it is an object) tell you? How does the language work? What are the important metaphors or symbols? What can the author's choice of words tell you? What about the silences--what does the author choose NOT to talk about?

Now you can evaluate the source as historical evidence.

1. Is it prescriptive--telling you what people thought should happen--or descriptive--telling you what people thought did happen?

2. Does it describe ideology and/or behavior?

3. Does it tell you about the beliefs/actions of the elite, or of "ordinary" people? From whose perspective?

4. What historical questions can you answer using this source? What are the benefits of using this kind of source?

5. What questions can this source NOT help you answer? What are the limitations of this type of source?

6. If we have read other historians' interpretations of this source or sources like this one, how does your analysis fit with theirs? In your opinion, does this source support or challenge their argument?

Remember, you cannot address each and every one of these questions in your presentation or in your paper, and I wouldn't want you to.

hope it helps

7 0

3 years ago