Answer:
Explanation:
I don't think it's possible to make a bad speech about 9/11. I married an American who was at home getting ready to go to work when it happened. We don't watch television. We're both too busy. But we have one. I phoned home at somewhere around 8:00 or 9:00 and told her she could be a little late, but she had to turn on the TV. She didn't want to do but I insisted. So she did it. I saw her an hour later. There were streak marks coming away from her eyes.
She didn't say much. She just said "Who would want to do that? Why did they do it?"
That's basically all she had to say.
President Bush was saying much the same thing. In general that's the way most people responded. There was shock and there were tears. The indignation and anger came later. But for a bit, everybody was a New Yorker trying to make out what happened. Trying to sympathize.
Just trying to feel the horror that befell them.
White examines the "middle ground" as both a place (the pays d'en haut of the Great Lakes region between 1650-1815) and a process of mutual accommodation between Algonquian-speaking Indians and French, British, and Americans. The middle ground consisted of creative misunderstandings in which Indians and Europeans attempted to build a set of mutually understandable practices. Several conditions are necessary for a middle ground process: a nonfunctioning or weak state authority, a relatively evenly-balanced distribution of power between peoples, the inability of one side to effectively use force over the other, and the need or desire to interact with one another (such as for trade goods). Both sides then try to engage in practices that the other side might find intelligible, such as European leaders consciously taking on the role of a patriarch that distributes gifts, mediates conflicts, and "covers" violent deaths. Indians, meanwhile, began participating in a market economy, compromised on legal punishments, and submitted to a limited degree to European oversight. The middle ground took place on both formal diplomatic levels (European powers budgeting for gift-giving) and the more everyday scale of individual interactions (sex and violence). People on both sides tried to justify their actions in terms of what they THOUGHT the other side's cultural framework to be (creative misunderstandings). Perhaps the best example is that of how they treated homicide, with both sides compromising - Europeans would sometimes cover the dead, while Indians would sometimes allow for individual perpetrators to be punished.
The narrative arc of The Middle Ground begins with a story of refugees, as Algonquian-speaking Indians flee northward from brutal warfare at the hands of the Iroquois during the 1640s-1660s. This places them in the orbit of French traders and missionaries and allow for the middle ground to flourish. The first half of the eighteenth century was a golden age for the middle ground, as Algonquians developed a relationship with Onontio (the title for a French governor) in which he was expected to act as a father in disbursing gifts and mediating conflicts. During this period the fur trade became deeply entangled with gift-giving, representing a hybrid form of exchange that was necessary for the system to function for both sides. During the 1740s and 1750s the French-Algonquian alliance began to weaken with increased competition from British. White drives home the point that in the pays d'en haut local, village politics were inseparable from imperial politics - instead of a hierarchical system of competing nation-states, the world of the middle ground took place between village alliances, intermarriages, and the decisions of specific chiefs that ended up reverberating across imperial politics.
Answer:
Veto power. Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Explanation:
can i get brainly?
