Here is a guide to providing the answers to the prompts:
1. Read the three passages cited.
2. Determine the feelings of Las Casas based on the events that occurred.
3. Mention specific events and actions that might cause Las Casa to feel that way.
<h3>Determining the meaning of a text</h3>
First, note that the three passages were not provided. So, a direct answer cannot be given. To understand the main points in a text, it is required that the texts are read carefully to know the explicit and implied meanings in the passage.
The feelings of Las Casa based on the text could be angry, happy, indifferent, etc. Whichever it is will be based on the actions of Columbus and Cortés toward the people in Hispaniola and Tenochtitlan.
So, read the text carefully to determine the feeling of Las Casa.
Learn more about the message of a text here:
brainly.com/question/11600913
Answer:
Two distinct laws passed in Nazi Germany in September 1935 are known collectively as the Nuremberg Laws: the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor. These laws embodied many of the racial theories underpinning Nazi ideology. They would provide the legal framework for the systematic persecution of Jews in Germany.
Adolf Hitler announced the Nuremberg Laws on September 15, 1935. Germany’s parliament (the Reichstag), then made up entirely of Nazi representatives, passed the laws. Antisemitism was of central importance to the Nazi Party, so Hitler had called parliament into a special session at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, Germany. The Nazis had long sought a legal definition that identified Jews not by religious affiliation but according to racial antisemitism. Jews in Germany were not easy to identify by sight. Many had given up traditional practices and appearances and had integrated into the mainstream of society. Some no longer practiced Judaism and had even begun celebrating Christian holidays, especially Christmas, with their non-Jewish neighbors. Many more had married Christians or converted to Christianity.
According to the Reich Citizenship Law and many ancillary decrees on its implementation, only people of “German or kindred blood” could be citizens of Germany. A supplementary decree published on November 14, the day the law went into force, defined who was and was not a Jew. The Nazis rejected the traditional view of Jews as members of a religious or cultural community. They claimed instead that Jews were a race defined by birth and by blood.
Despite the persistent claims of Nazi ideology, there was no scientifically valid basis to define Jews as a race. Nazi legislators looked therefore to family genealogy to define race. People with three or more grandparents born into the Jewish religious community were Jews by law. Grandparents born into a Jewish religious community were considered “racially” Jewish. Their “racial” status passed to their children and grandchildren. Under the law, Jews in Germany were not citizens but “subjects" of the state.
This legal definition of a Jew in Germany covered tens of thousands of people who did not think of themselves as Jews or who had neither religious nor cultural ties to the Jewish community. For example, it defined people who had converted to Christianity from Judaism as Jews. It also defined as Jews people born to parents or grandparents who had converted to Christianity. The law stripped them all of their German citizenship and deprived them of basic rights.
To further complicate the definitions, there were also people living in Germany who were defined under the Nuremberg Laws as neither German nor Jew, that is, people having only one or two grandparents born into the Jewish religious community. These “mixed-raced” individuals were known as Mischlinge. They enjoyed the same rights as “racial” Germans, but these rights were continuously curtailed through subsequent legislation.
The correct answer is It ruled segregation violated the rules of the Constitution.
The Brown vs. Board of Education was one that dealt with the legality of segregated public schools. In this ruling, the Supreme Court justices ruled that the idea of segregated facilities was unconstitutional. The justices argued that having "separate but equal" facilities violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution.