Answer:
Both Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin were the main liberators of the Spanish colonies in South America.
It's D
Explanation:
-Jose de San Martin was an Argentine general and the first leader of the southern part of South America who succeeded in achieving the independence from Spain, having participated actively in the independence processes of Argentina, Chile and Peru.
-Simon Bolivar was is a Venezuelan general and statesman. He is an emblematic figure, with the Argentinian Jose de San Martin and Bernardo O'Higgins of Chile, of the emancipation of the Spanish colonies in South America in 1813. He participated decisively to the independence of current Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela. Bolivar also participated in the creation of Gran Colombia, which he wanted to become a great political and military confederation grouping all of Latin America.
The feudal system in europe led to the development of a new economic system called the _______ system
manorialism
Answer:
yo this is just a geuss, i have not even learned about that subject yet, but maybe it is because they did not know How to keep records. Maybe they were not smart enough to keep them. Or maybe it is because they had no access to the technology to keep records. don't fail the class because of my advise though.
Explanation:
Again don't be completly reliant on this answer, i'm literally a middle school student that has no education on this topic. i hope it helps!
C). It failed to poll poor voters, because the names of the mailing list for the poll were taken from phone directories/magazine subscribers/etc., which tended to just be composed of middle-class/upper-class voters since they were the ones who could afford it
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.
