The decisions they make later apply to every similar situation everywhere in the country. For example, there was a case in which students wanted to wear armbands protesting the war, but the school said that was disruptive. The Supreme Court sided with the student, and said they had a right to free speech as long as it wasn’t causing a material interruption. This case would later be the example on how to solve many cases regarding student’s freedom of speech.
<span>by attacking friendly Indians who had not taken part in the rebellion</span>
im on the same one , its super tricky ill get back with you if i find out
One piece of evidence that Duara uses in the passage to support his claim regarding Western racial attitudes and Japanese militarism in the second paragraph is where he says that Japan was allotted a lower quota of ships than the British and Americans.
Or you can say...
Discrimination was perceived in the international conferences in Washington (1922), the London Naval Conference (1930), and wherever Japan was allotted a lower quota of ships than the British and Americans. But most of all, it was the buildup of exclusionary policies in the United States and the final Exclusion Laws prohibiting Japanese immigration in 1924 that galled Japanese nationalists. In their view, Asian civilization did not exhibit inhuman racist attitudes and policies of this kind, and for [Japanese] militants . . . these ingrained civilizational differences would have to be fought out in a final, righteous war of the East against the West.”
The annexation of AUSTRIA served as a wake up call to Great Britain and France. This is the answer.....
