<em>If I were a settler in the American West, I would think Manifest Destiny is believable. This is because it’s such a huge leap for the country as they are getting about 2x the land they already have. I would be so shocked about it, since America is getting more land for farming, mining, etc... This would improve my living situation and money if I were there, because more land means more room to make money. I would be so grateful for Manifest Destiny at the time.</em>
<em>✋
</em>
t is difficult for the public due to red tapism and the fact that the leaders are good at hiding facts.
Explanation:
Red tapism is one of the things that have led many bureaucrats to simply cover up the traces of their questionable deeds in tucked away files that are only revealed after 30 or 40 years.
This makes it difficult for the public to assess them in terms of the information they have as the information that reaches is generally inaccurate and incomplete.
It also has to do with the fact that politicians are constantly trying to save face through PR and also other shady tactics that muddy up the image more.
While both Greek and Romans were pretty ethnocentric by modern standards, the Romans assimilated far more people into their institutional lives.
Many non-Greeks adopted Gteek lifestyles, language and habits after the age of Alexander, but the cross-pollination was more frequently cultural than political. Cleopatra might have dressed like an Egyptian queen and patronized the Egyptian gods, but she wouldn't have had Egyptian generals or Egyptian judges. The Greeks tended to settle into the cultures they occupied like the British in India: remaining separate from and believing themselves superior to the people around them, even while encouraging the 'natives' to adopt their culture habits.
Romans did a much more thorough job assimilating the peoples they conquered. Non-Romans could and did become citizens, even from very early times. This started with neighboring groups like the Latins, but eventually extend to the rest of Italy and later to the whole empire. Eventually there would be "Roman" emperors of Syrian, British, Spanish, Gallic, Balkan, and North African descent Farther down the social scale the mixing was much more complete (enough to irritate many Roman traditionalists). This wasn’t just a practical accommodation, either — when emperor Claudius allowed Gauls into the Roman Senate he pointed out that by his time the Romans had been assimilating former enemies since the days of Aeneas.
<span>The correct answer is B. It was a major step forward for civilization because it protected the weak from the strong. There were laws before it but they weren't as comprehensive. Hammurabi stated himself in the introduction that it is made to protect weak from the strong. The law was based on an eye for an eye basis, meaning if for example cut someone's hand off, you would have your hand cut off.</span>
Answer:
C.
Explanation:
It encouraged African countries to fight against European powers and END colonization so it would be c.
Hope this helps :)
