Answer:
The establishment of crops, the exploitation of sugar and the exploitation of gold.
Explanation:
Colombus was the first Spanish explorer to reach the Caribbean islands and quickly wrote to the Spanish crown about how profitable that land would be for Spain. Colombus wrote that the land was good for agriculture, which could improve food in Spain and promote trade between other countries. In addition, Colombus stated that the exploitation of sugar would be very beneficial in the place, in addition to the exploration of gold and other precious metals. These factors made the Caribbean an extremely important region for Spain, which aroused the greed of other nations in relation to this territory.
Florida borders both the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Sea
This chapter, which analyses the theories of cultural action which develop from antidialogical and dialogical matrices, will make frequent reference to points presented in the previous chapters, either to expand these points or to clarify new affirmations.
I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.
Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting which they cannot transcend. Hence, each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves.
But human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. It cannot, as I stressed in chapter 2, be reduced to either verbalism or activism.
Lenin's famous statement: "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1 means that a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor adtivism, but rather with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed. The revolutionary effort to transform these structures radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and the oppressed as mere doers.
If true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action, this theory cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process. The leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated—and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.
The leaders do bear the responsibility for coordination and, at times, direction—but leaders who deny praxis to the oppressed thereby invalidate their own praxis. By imposing their word on others, they falsify that word and establish a contradiction between their methods and their objectives. If they are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot proceed without the action and reflection of others.
Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
Answer:
The Indus River basin lies between Pakistan and India, and has become a major point of contention between the two nations. The Indus River is the most important water supplier for the Punjab plains and is the foundation of all water supply for Pakistan. While India has upstream control of the Indus River, a treaty signed in 1960 by the two nations ensures that Pakistan will retain water from the river. Current issues about this river and the lands that it feeds include India's creation of dams and hydroelectric structures upstream that have started limiting Pakistan's access to water downstream.
The rise of humanism in Italy is associated with the period in history, from the 14th to 16th centuries, that we call "The Renaissance." Renaissance means a rebirth -- and a big part of what was being reborn in the Italian Renaissance was the classical culture and scholarship of Greece and Rome. Scholars were unearthing many of the old writings of Greek and Roman philosophers, historians, and statesmen. These writings -- from pagan societies -- showed the deep thinking and great acts human beings were capable of prior to the rise of Christian society in Europe. This prompted humanist scholars in Italy (and elsewhere) to give focus to the full range of human capabilities -- in art, architecture, scholarship and writing, etc. Renaissance humanists remained within the Catholic Church and Christian culture, which dominated Europe in those centuries. But whereas church-dominated culture prior to the Renaissance focused mostly on the sinfulness and lowness of human beings in contrast to the greatness of God, the humanism of the Renaissance emphasized the greatness of human beings as God's creation. Individuals were encouraged to be all they could be, learn all they could learn, do all they could do as "Renaissance men."
