1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Yanka [14]
3 years ago
15

What does Henry Blake mean by “when we worked on shares, we couldn’t make nothing”

History
1 answer:
Marta_Voda [28]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

“When We Worked on Shares, We Couldn't Make Nothing”: Henry Blake Talks About Sharecropping after the Civil War. ... By 1870, sharecropping was the dominant means by which African Americans could gain access to land in the South.

Explanation: I hope this helps, if not friend I tried :)

You might be interested in
Which of the following is a benefit for Americans as globalization increases? lower prices for manufactured goods higher wages f
Eddi Din [679]

Answer:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Canada, Mexico, and the United States has now been in effect for three years. Globalization advocates, including Bill Clinton, have heralded it as a major step forward for all involved, while the conservative Heritage Foundation says that under NAFTA "trade has increased, U.S. exports and employment levels have risen significantly, and the average living standards of American workers have improved."

Yet the evidence shows the opposite. First, recent research by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University confirms that globalization shifts bargaining power toward employers and against U.S. workers. Bronfenbrenner found that since the signing of NAFTA more than half of employers faced with union organizing and contract drives have threatened to close their plants in response. And 15% of firms involved in union bargaining have actually closed part or all of their plants—three times the rate during the late 1980s.

Second, NAFTA has caused large U.S. job losses, despite claims by the White House that the United States has gained 90,000 to 160,000 jobs due to trade with Mexico, and by the U.S. Trade Representative that U.S. jobs have risen by 311,000 due to greater trade with Mexico and Canada. The liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI) points out that the Clinton administration looks only at the effects of exports by the United States, while ignoring increased imports coming from our neighbors. EPI estimates that the U.S. economy has lost 420,000 jobs since 1993 due to worsening trade balances with Mexico and Canada.

Research on individual companies yields similar evidence of large job losses. In 1993 the National Association of Manufacturers released anecdotes from more than 250 companies who claimed that they would create jobs in the United States if NAFTA passed. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch surveyed 83 of these same companies this year. Trade Watch found that 60 had broken their earlier promises to create jobs or expand U.S. exports, while seven had kept them and 16 were unable or unwilling to provide data.

Among the promise-breakers were Allied Signal, General Electric, Mattel, Proctor and Gamble, Whirlpool, and Xerox, all of whom have laid off workers due to NAFTA (as certified by the Department of Labor's NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance program). GE, for example, testified in 1993 that sales to Mexico "could support 10,000 [U.S.] jobs for General Electric and its suppliers," but in 1997 could demonstrate no job gains due to NAFTA.

To see why, let's review recent trends in global trade. At a swift pace in recent decades, barriers to international trade, investment, and production have fallen. Transport and telecommunications have become much cheaper and faster, greatly improving the ability of multinationals to manage globally dispersed activities. Tariff and nontariff barriers have been removed through international agreements, including NAFTA, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization, while the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment is looming.

Since the 1970s trade in goods and services has been increasing much faster than world output, the opposite of what happened in the 1950s and 1960s. From 1970 through the mid-1990s, world output grew at a rate of 3% per year, trade volume at 5.7% per year.

For the United States, the ratio of exports and imports to gross domestic product (GDP) changed little over most of the present century, but from 1972 through 1995 it rose from 11% to 24%. By 1990, 36% of U.S. imports came from developing countries compared with 14% in 1970. For the European Union, imports from developing nations grew from 5% to 12% over the same period (the proportions would have been much higher if trade between European nations was excluded, just as interstate trade is excluded from U.S. foreign trade figures).

Multinationals' use of developing nations for production is substantial and growing, especially in Latin America and Asia (excluding Japan). By 1994 it accounted for a third of all trade between U.S. multinational parents and their affiliates, and at least 40% of their worldwide employment.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did nationalism impact Napoleon’s conquest of Europe?
nadya68 [22]
Many Europeans saw Napoleon and his armies as foreign oppressors and fought back to save their countries.

Nationalism was important to Napoleon. He needed to keep his citizens loyal to France so that he could stay in power and spread his country's influence throughout Europe. Napoleon's aggression, however, increased the nationalistic impulses in his enemies and those he conquered.
7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the name of the edict that declared that colonists should not settle west of the appalachian mountains?
Dmitriy789 [7]

The name of the edict that declared that colonists should not settle west of the Appalachian Mountains was the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation of 1763 was published by the British at the ending of the Indian and French War to conciliate Native Americans by inspecting the violation of European settlers in their areas.

 

EXPLANATION:  

The Proclamation of 1763 generated a boundary, recognized as the line of proclamation, segregating the British colonies who lived in the Atlantic coast from the American Indian area west of the Appalachian Mountains. Years after the proclamation, this has been one of the legal foundations of Native Americans in the United States and Canada.

 

After the end of the Indian and French Wars in America, the British Empire started to tauten control over its rather independent colonies. Responding to the Pontiac’s Rebellion, a Native American rebellion with Pontiac as the leader. Pontiac was an Ottawa chief, King George III professed all regions west of the Appalachian Divide was prohibited for colonial settlers.

 

This royal proclamation, published on 7 October 1763, closed the colonial extension westward outside of Appalachia. That was the first step that affected all thirteen colonies. The decree prohibited citizens and the colonial government from purchasing land or making any agreements with the native people; the empire would do all official affairs. In addition, only licensed merchants were permitted to travel west or deal with Indians.

 

Theoretically protecting invaders from Indian raging, the action was also intended to protect Native Americans from progressively recurrent attacks by white settlers. The proclamation also built three new mainland colonies: West Florida, Quebec, and East Florida, while expanding the southern border of Georgia and giving land to soldiers who fought in the Seven Years War.

LEARN MORE:  

If you’re interested in learning more about this topic, we recommend you to also take a look at the following questions:

• Which most accurately explains colonists’ reaction to this policy as outlined in the Declaration of Independence? brainly.com/question/5968308

KEYWORDS : The Proclamation of 1763, Appalachian Mountains

Subject  : History

Class  : 10-12

Sub-Chapter : The Proclamation of 1763

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Is Jews/Jew an offensive term....this isn't for school I just want other people's personal views on this word. PLS BE RESPECTFUL
Andreyy89
If your calling someone Jew to be mean then yes but if you say Jew it’s not offensive
8 0
2 years ago
Which statement displays the US foreign policy of containment during the Cold War?
Mila [183]
<span>Stop the spread of Communism by increasing US presence around the world and supporting democracy and capitalism.
 The policy of containment was a usa cold war policy of countering the pread of communism and it was done in response to Soviet expansionism dream.
</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • _________ led the first expedition that explored the newly purchased Louisiana territory.
    6·1 answer
  • Which Indian tribe did Spain conquer in Peru
    8·2 answers
  • Why had the natives turned violent on Christopher Columbus’s return to Hispaniola in 1493?
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following was one effect of the Sepoy Rebellion?
    14·1 answer
  • Question 5 (1 point)
    9·1 answer
  • I need help on 43 and 45 please. Thanks :D
    11·1 answer
  • 20 points ! Please hurry
    15·1 answer
  • Five democratic structures which play a role in the community of South Africa ​?
    13·1 answer
  • Who was one of the main organizers of the Mayflower voyage ?
    14·1 answer
  • PLEASE HELP<br><br> which of the following best describes the meaning of the political cartoon?
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!