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
igor_vitrenko [27]
2 years ago
14

What does revolution mean?

History
2 answers:
neonofarm [45]2 years ago
8 0
It’s B a major change
Alina [70]2 years ago
7 0
Revolution mean B. A major change
You might be interested in
Which city did Japanese leaders confine European trade to?
oee [108]

Because of the superior number of Asian armies, European was at disadvantage in fighting inland.Small islands including <u><em>Java</em></u> and those in mainland southeast Asia were also able to resist the Europeans. Realizing their position within Asia, they became submissive, in which they accepted the power of Asian rulers and kowtowed to them in order to be accepted for trade.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
We're the southern states justified in seceding from the United States ?
Kitty [74]

Answer:

The south had no justified reason to secede from the union. They were still bound to the constitution, had no legal right to secede, and broke numerous laws such as forming an illegal alliance and attacking the United States (at Ft. Sumter). The constitution was created as the basis of the United States government.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Why was John T scopes put on trial​
kirill [66]

Answer: John Thomas Scopes and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case in July 1925 in which a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler

Explanation: i had some  help with my mom

7 0
3 years ago
According to Douglass, what benefits do enslaved
AnnyKZ [126]

Answer:

They are less likely to be abused., and  they recieve more food

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Did the Native Americans believe that acquiring possessions was an important goal?
ohaa [14]

Answer:

Explanation:At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • how did the growth of the mining industry positively and negatively affect the development of western towns
    10·1 answer
  • What do you think were the major causes of the european renaissance?
    15·1 answer
  • How did religious leaders attempt to resolve the iconoclast controversy
    11·1 answer
  • Write a paragraph describing different forms of colonial rule. be sure to define protectorate, direct rule, and indirect rule an
    7·1 answer
  • Which combination would the president most likely use to convince Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill?
    6·2 answers
  • Great, go for 13! where did the inca empire exist? 1=asia 2= south america 3=africa 4=hint 5= skip reply 1, 2 or 3 for free 4 or
    13·1 answer
  • Vietnam borrowed all these elements of chinese culture except? a. shotgunate system b. architecture c. confucianism d. buddhism
    9·2 answers
  • What is one example of a political, economic, and social change that you see happening in the world today?
    11·1 answer
  • What are some of the common elements in the process of European state building? What specific measures did the national monarchi
    7·1 answer
  • 19. According to Greek Mythology, who was the god of war that loved violence?
    10·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!