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.
Answer:
Five factors that spurred industrial growth in the late 1800's are Abundant natural resources (coal, iron, oil); Abundant labor supply; Railroads; Labor saving technological advances (new patents) and Pro-Business government policies.
Several factors led to the rise of U.S. industrialization in the late 1800’s. New technologies like steam engines, railroads, and telegraphs made communication and transportation easier. The ability to source and transport materials across the country with ease turned many local businesses into national companies. Workplace innovations, such as the assembly-line method of production, allowed these companies to produce goods on a mass scale.
The 1920s were a decade that saw significant societal shifts and development. The most evident symptoms of change were the growth of a consumer-oriented economy and of popular entertainment, both of which served to bring about a "revolution in morals and manners." During this time period, sexual mores, gender roles, hairstyles, and clothes all underwent major shifts. This is further explained below.
<h3>What is the social upheaval of 1920?</h3>
Generally, The 1920s were a decade that saw significant societal changes. The emergence of a consumer-oriented economy and the advent of popular entertainment was the most evident indicators that times were changing.
In conclusion, The 1920s were a decade that saw significant societal changes. The most visible indicators of change were the growth of a consumer-oriented economy and of mass entertainment, which contributed to bringing about a "revolution in morality and manners." During the 1920s, there was a significant shift in sexual mores, gender roles, hairstyles, and clothes.
Read more about the social upheaval of 1920
brainly.com/question/12158013
#SPJ1
President Roosevelt and President Hoover differed in their approaches to dealing with the Great Depression because Roosevelt did many things to get the economy back in shape, while Hoover wanted to tackle the problem, but didn't want to get in depth with it.
________________________________________________
President Hoover had an impression that the stock market crash during 1929 was just a simple error in the market, and that it could easily be fixed. He said that it would be fixed if everyone acted normal and act like the stock market crash never happened. The government intervention for him was not a solution.
_________________________________________________
President Roosevelt became president right after Hoover, and he noticed the problem the stock market crash had on people in the economy. The thing that he did is that he made a lot of public works projects. For example, the Works Projects Administration, was a organization which gave people short-time employments to keep them on the right track, and get the stock market crash off their minds and give them some income. He also made "bank holidays" which didn't allow people to take all of their money out of their bank account. He was doing many things to fix the economy from the Great Depression.
Answer:
In this speech Malcolm X described how Blacks should fight for civil-rights in America. Malcolm X emphasizes the worth of voting as a solution to ending discrimination against Blacks. Hes both the poor voting decisions and also the denial of legitimate voting rights to Blacks.
Explanation: