Answer:
The "CIVILIZING MISSION" argument
Explanation:
Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory. The etymology of the two terms, however, provides some clues about how they differ. The term colony comes from the Latin word colonus, meaning farmer. This root reminds us that the practice of colonialism usually involved the transfer of population to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as permanent settlers while maintaining political allegiance to their country of origin. Imperialism, on the other hand, comes from the Latin term imperium, meaning to command. Thus, the term imperialism draws attention to the way that one country exercises power over another, whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirect mechanisms of control.
The legitimacy of colonialism has been a longstanding concern for political and moral philosophers in the Western tradition. At least since the Crusades and the conquest of the Americas, political theorists have struggled with the difficulty of reconciling ideas about justice and natural law with the practice of European sovereignty over non-Western peoples. In the nineteenth century, the tension between liberal thought and colonial practice became particularly acute, as dominion of Europe over the rest of the world reached its zenith. Ironically, in the same period when most political philosophers began to defend the principles of universalism and equality, the same individuals still defended the legitimacy of colonialism and imperialism. One way of reconciling those apparently opposed principles was the argument known as the “civilizing mission,” which suggested that a temporary period of political dependence or tutelage was necessary in order for “uncivilized” societies to advance to the point where they were capable of sustaining liberal institutions and self-government.
The fall that led to the end was:
The two sons of Huayna Capac plunged the empire into a brutal civil war. Atahualpa and Huáscar called on the mummified bodies of past Sapa Incas to assist them. The Incas believed their rulers were living descendants of Inti, the sun god. ... The civil war seemed to end in 1532 when Atahualpa's army captured Huáscar. After that, it led to the downfall of the Inca.
I think that "Coya" was Coya Cusirimay and who was the daughter of the Inca Topa Inca Yupanqui and Mama Ocllo Coya, and the full sister of Huayna Capac.
Hope this helps, have a good day. c;
Globalization is driven by various new development and gradual changes in the world economy.
Answer:
A) it marks the day Texas became independent from Mexico.
Explanation:
Answer:
Details which support the Aryans' and Indians' use of the caste system are that Aryans were the superior race under the Third Reich. They were superior in terms of technology and science, so their use of a caste system was entirely justified. Heinrich Himmler designed this caste system to be as efficient as possible. As far as the Indian caste system, native Americans have been casting pottery since the dawn of time, so it makes sense that they would have a caste system to support their society. Can you imagine making friendship pipes without a system in place? It is for those reasons that the Aryans' and Indians' caste systems were used and I fully support that use.
Explanation:
