Mexican independence was achieved when Mestizo and Creole leaders joined forces in the early 1820s so this statement is <u>True</u>.
<h3>How did the Mexicans achieve independence?</h3>
The Mexicans tried to gain independence twice but because they were divided, the Spanish were able to crush both rebellions.
This changed in the early 1820s when Mestizo and Creole leaders joined forces. This led to the installation of a King/ Emperor in the form of Agustin de Iturbide but his reign lasted for just a year.
Find out more on Agustin de Iturbide at brainly.com/question/13590035.
#SPJ1
Amritsar is also called the JallianWala Bagh massacre. it is one of the most gruesome killing if the common civilians who assembled and were on peaceful strike in Amritsar.
Explanation:
Though Indians supported the British in their wars against Germany and Ottoman empire, The British Raj lacked trust on some of the radical Indians who understood the real purpose of the Britishers to occupy India. Gradually British decided to repress Indians by passing Rowlatt act which authorized the Britishers to imprison the revolutionaries just based on suspicion and the press were also not given the rights and freedom of speech and expression. General Dyer also restricted any association of more than four members in the public places in Amritsar.
But more than twenty thousand civilians assembled in the public park called JallianWala Bagh. General dyer ordered the cease fire and more than four hundred people were killed. This made the Indians to lose hope on the British Government and from thereon the nationalism spirit of Indians rose to such an extent that Independence was indispensable for Indians.
False, because not only did vietnam trade with foreign countries, but vietnam also conducted trade within its own domestic economic networks
Answer:
No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.
From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.
Explanation:
What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.
