Answer:
After people were asked not to sit in the seat behind the drivers in honor of Rosa Parks' fight for the Civil Rights movement, some people did actually sit in that seat. Making the assumption that these people were prejudiced or racist is an example of the correspondence bias.
Explanation:
On December 1st, 1955, Rosa Parks was commuting back home by bus, when the driver asked her and three other African Americans to stand up from their seats so that white passengers could seat there. While the three other passengers complied with the driver's order, Rosa Parks denied to do so, which ended up with her arrest, and later on with a social movement that decided to boycott the buses in Montgomery during Rosa Parks' trial. Although most of the people decided to leave the first seat behind the driver empty in honor of Rosa Parks, some of them actually seat on it anyways. Assuming that these people were racists is an example of a correspondence bias. A correspondence bias is the tendency to draw inferences about a person's personality based on a unique and specific observed behavior. There are many circumstances and reasons as to why that people sat on the seat that was meant to be empty that would not make them instantly perceived as racist or prejudiced, but assuming that they are based on that one action would be an example of a correspondence bias.
The use of vertical integration to create momopolies
Answer:
The roots of Independence
The extensive Spanish colonies in North, Central and South America (which included half of South America, present-day Mexico, Florida, islands in the Caribbean and the southwestern United States) declared independence from Spanish rule in the early nineteenth century and by the turn of the twentieth century, the hundreds of years of the Spanish colonial era had come to a close. How did this happen? The Enlightenment ideals of democracy—equality under the law, separation of church and state, individual liberty—encouraged colonial independence movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The Enlightenment began in eighteenth-century Europe as a philosophical movement that took science, reason, and inquiry as its guiding principles in order to challenge traditions and reform society. The results of these changes in thought are reflected in both the American and French revolutions—where a monarchical form of government (where the King ruled by divine right) was replaced with a Republic empowered by the people. In Spain, the occupation by Napoleon during the Peninsular War (1808-1814) also inspired liberators to fight against foreign invaders. The examples of rebellion in the British Colonies, France, and Spain empowered Latin American revolutionaries who speculated on whether independence was a realistic and viable alternative to colonial rule. The term “Latin America” originated in the nineteenth century, when Argentinean jurist Carlos Calvo and French engineer Michel Chevalier, in reference to the Napoleonic invasion of Mexico in 1862, used the term “Latin,” referring to those whose national language—like Spanish—was derived from Latin, to denote difference from the “Anglo-Saxon” English-speaking people of North America. It was largely the creoles (pure-blooded Spaniards who were born in the Americas) who instigated the fight for liberation. Creoles remained connected to Europe through their ancestry and since they were often educated abroad, these ideas of self-determination held great appeal for them. Peninsulares (people born in Spain, but who resided in the Spanish colonies) on the other hand were more directly tied to Spain in ancestry and allegiance. In 1793, the Colombian creole Antonio Nariño, who would later serve as military general in Colombia’s struggle for independence, printed a translation of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, demonstrating the bilingual and bicultural aspect of Latin American independence. Translations of speeches made by the founding fathers of the United States, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, also circulated in Latin America. Not all creoles however, believed in independence and democracy—in fact, there existed an opposition of creole royalists who supported the Spanish Crown and allied themselves with the Peninsulares. Creole patriots (as opposed to the royalists) were attracted to the idea of independence and thought of themselves as Latin Americans, not as Spaniards. Despite having been born and raised in a Spanish viceroyalty to Spanish parents, they were culturally connected to Latin America. Situated at the interface of both identities, creole patriots considered themselves descendants of, but different from, the Spanish.
Explanation:
<h2><u>
PLZ MARK AS BRAINLEST!!!</u></h2>
1. Sincere individuals thought that if Native Americans adopted white clothing and ways, they would try first-hand how much better it was and leave behind their native culture, thought as uncivilized by that time. As they would become more assimilated to the American society, the Government wouldn't have to overlook their welfare.
2. The Dawes Act, named after its creator Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, allowed the President to survey Native American tribal land and divide it into allotments to be handed to Native Americans as individual property.
3. Native Americans registered on a tribal "roll" were granted allotments of reservation land. They had to leave behind their culture and adopt the white American one. If they did so, they were granted U.S. citizenship.
4. Excess land after the distributed one to tribal members was sold on the open market. The land allotted to Native American families were a lot of the time desertic, and could not sustain them. The self-sufficient farming techniques were very different from tribal ones. Many of the tribal members didn't want to take up agriculture, and the ones that did couldn't afford tools, seeds and so to get started. Inheritance was also a problem: if there were many inherent, the parcelled allotments wasn't enough to sustain all of them.
5. The government succeeded in erasing a vital part of tribal culture, the common property of the land, setting the foundations for their assimilation and the destruction of their culture. In the long term, these various cultures still exist, despite the government's efforts on the contrary. If the government wanted to protect Native American rights, it failed.
