It is the Hinduism and Buddhism. The principal thousand years B.C. is a dynamic period in the improvement of South Asian culture and masterful customs. In North India, majestic power is focused in the Magadha area, later the center of the Mauryan realm, which in the third century B.C. controls everything except the southern tip of India. Two heterodox religions, Buddhism and Jainism, emerge in basic reaction to the Sanskrit-based Brahmanic religious custom." With a period outline, rundown of key occasions, and three related fine arts.
Relationships among private individual or companies are governed by
<span>civil law.</span>
Answer:
<h3>
To achieve his purpose, Jackson encouraged Congress to adopt the Removal Act of 1830.<em>
</em><u>
The Act established a process whereby the President could grant land west of the Mississippi River to Indian tribes that agreed to give up their homelands</u></h3>
Explanation:
The goal was for the President they could grant land west of Mississippi River to Indain tribes that agreed to give up their homelands.
Hope I helped!
Answer:
If their writing dissapears, then, what is known about that civilization is also likely to dissapear, unless their previous writing was preserved in some other way.
This is something that has actually happened often in history. For example, the library of Alexandria, in Egypt, was the largest library of the Ancient World, and it was burned down by Caliph Omar in 642 AD. Countless works by Ancient authors, that gave account of civilizations, cultures, philosphies, and religions, were lost, and there is no plausible way to recover such knowledge in the current era.
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
