There were two particularly important reasons why the state might have sponsored such organized ridicule and abuse of minorities. The first reason was that identifying minorities in this way allowed people to have someone to "blame" for the problems of the country. Minorities were accused of causing financial problems, or hoarding jobs or of accumulating wealth they did not deserve.
The second reason why this attitude was useful to the state was that it encouraged the unity of people who did fit the traditional definition of "German." By having a common enemy, white Germans were more likely to become unified and to collaborate with one another in the development of the Nazi state.
Answer:
fdjndbjhjrrbhjrghbrhbrhffjhfbjhghbghjbghjb
Explanation:
bjrerhjbfbhjfhjbfhjffhfhfhfhfhh
Altering photographs was part of Joseph Stalin's effort to change historical facts. Joseph Stalin was actually the leader of Soviet union from the mid 1920s until the year 1953. He was born on 18th of December in the year 1878 and died on 5th of march in the year 1953. I hope the answer has helped you.
Answer:
Mark as brainliest
Explanation:
symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.
Issue Section:
Articles
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5
If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9
