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
kumpel [21]
3 years ago
14

"Individual Mississippians have the power to change society.”

History
1 answer:
densk [106]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

No.

Explanation:

No, Individual Mississippians does not have the power to change society because one individual is not enough for bringing change in the society, it needs a large number of people. When a large number of people decides to bring change in the society, it will happens due to the struggle of large number of people. A single person doesn't have the ability to bring change alone, he needs a group of people.

You might be interested in
During the Red Scare II, what accusation
MakcuM [25]

Answer:

The answer is A.

Explanation:

During the Red scrae, tehre was a fear of socialism spreading throughout the world.

7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which belief system gave us the yin-yang circle?
kykrilka [37]

Answer:

B. Daoism

Explanation:

From Brainly

7 0
2 years ago
What caused the fall of the soviet union​
lana66690 [7]
1) Oil prices and economic inefficiency.

Yamani, declared that Saudi Arabia was quitting the agreement on oil production restraint, and started to boost its share in the oil market. After this, Saudi Arabia increased oil production by 5.5 fold, and oil prices dropped by 6.1 fold,
2) ethnic tensions
3) Gorbachev’s reforms
7 0
3 years ago
Below is a digram of a hypothetical bill. Which of the following must be the missing legislative step in the diagram?
Angelina_Jolie [31]

Answer:Its B 100 percent sure.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In this unit, you learned that Oklahoma experienced a great deal of change in the late
vampirchik [111]

Answer:

Explanation:The dawn of the twentieth century found the region between Kansas and Texas in transition. Once set aside as a permanent home for indigenous and uprooted American Indians, almost two million acres of Indian Territory had been opened to settlement in 1889. Joined with a strip of land above the Texas Panhandle, the two areas were designated "Oklahoma Territory" by an act of Congress the following year. Subsequent additions of land surrendered by tribal governments increased the new territory until it was roughly equal in size to the diminished Indian Territory. Land was the universal attraction, but many white pioneers who rushed into Oklahoma Territory or settled in Indian Territory hoped for a fresh start in a new Eden not dominated by wealth and corporate power. Freedmen dreamed of a new beginning in a place of social justice where rights guaranteed by the Constitution would be respected. Most Native Americans, whose land was being occupied, had come to realize the futility of their opposition to the process that would soon unite the two territories into a single state. A few Indians, most wedded to tribal traditions, simply ignored a process they could not understand and refused to participate in an allotment of land they had once been promised would be theirs "forever."

The birth of the new state occurred in an era of protest and reform. Populist and Progressive currents merged to sweep reform-minded Democrats to an overwhelming victory in 1906 in the selection of delegates to a Constitutional Convention tasked with forging Indian and Oklahoma territories and the Osage Nation into a single state. The constitution drafted at the convention in Guthrie in 1906–07 was not as "radical" as Pres. Theodore Roosevelt suggested, but it did reflect its authors' belief that the will of the people, not powerful corporations, should determine state policy. A series of provisions, including a corporation commission, popular election of many state officials, initiative and referendum, preferential balloting for U.S. senators, a single term for the governor, a weak legislature, and inclusion of details in the constitution normally enacted by statute, reflected the founding fathers' conviction that corporate influence on state government should be held in check.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did many writers in the 1920s react to the changing American culture?
    13·1 answer
  • How/why did woodrow Wilson win the election of 1912
    10·1 answer
  • What would be the answer to is 100+100?
    13·2 answers
  • How did the Greeks view the role and limits of government? A. Only citizens could participate in government, but not everyone co
    6·2 answers
  • The process by which tsunami waves slow down in shallow water and are then bunched up when the faster larger waves catch up is c
    6·2 answers
  • What did Louisiana's farmers and planters agree to do by signing up for assistance from the AAA?
    14·1 answer
  • How was industrialization similar in Japan and the United States?
    9·1 answer
  • European explorers were sent to the New World for?​
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the following states the purpose of the 1962 Second Vatican Council? to bring about an end to slavery to spread the Cat
    5·1 answer
  • Use five of the bars provided to correctly represent the casualties suffered by the major countries in world war i.
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!