Answer:
Those who examine the impact of the Holocaust on politics deal with the extent, depth, type, and dynamics of the impact but not with the impact itself. The impact itself is considered axiomatic because it is so sweeping and vast. Since the issue is so large and made up of so many overt and covert associations - direct and indirect, Jewish and pan-human, immediate and belated, ethical and practical - a general framework that presents and diagnoses the matter becomes, by nature, a telegraphic prologue to innumerable studies already carried out and yet to come.
Explanation:
Answer:
For the first, I would say being poorly represented.
For the second, ignorance and morals.
Explanation:
A lot of people have been raised to demand a change when they see injustices, some might go at it in a violent way, others might approach it in a more peaceful way. One thing you have to know about making big decisions, is that you will never please everyone. Someone is always going to be mad. It depends on their moral values as people. If you saw something that you thought was morally wrong, you would be upset too. They have tried peaceful protests and weren't heard, now they choose to incite violence because they have a voice and are represented in the media that way.
It all leads down to morals. The media says that if you aren't for it, you're automatically against it. If something the media does or activists do doesn't allign with people's morals, they choose the complete opposite because they think that's their only option.
Houston was soon citing the need for military action against Mexico, and in 1835 was appointed major general of the Texas army. Houston made peace with the Indians of the region so the Texians could focus on their push for Independence without distraction. Soon he would organize the Republic of Texas's first army.
