Answer:
In general the sociocultural process in which the sense and consciousness of association with one national and cultural group changes to identification with another such group, so that the merged individual or group may partially or totally lose its original national identity. Assimilation can occur and not only on the unconscious level in primitive societies. It has been shown that even these societies have sometimes developed specific mechanisms to facilitate assimilation, e.g., adoption; mobilization, and absorption into the tribal fighting force; exogamic marriage; the client relationship between the tribal protector and members of another tribe. In more developed societies, where a stronger sense of cultural and historical identification has evolved, the mechanisms, as well as the automatic media of assimilation, become more complicated. The reaction of the assimilator group to the penetration of the assimilated increasingly enters the picture.
Various factors may combine to advance or hinder the assimilation process. Those actively contributing include the position of economic strength held by a group; the political advantages to be gained from adhesion or separation; acknowledged cultural superiority; changes in religious outlook and customs; the disintegration of one group living within another more cohesive group; the development of an "open society" by either group. Added to these are external factors, such as changes in the demographic pattern (mainly migration) or those wrought by revolution and revolutionary attitudes. Sociologists have described the man in process of assimilation as "the marginal man," both attracted and repelled by the social and cultural spheres in which he lives in a state of transition.
Explanation:
Similarities:
Both empires emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries as postclassic civilizations building on the innovations of earlier political powers but expanding to greater extents
Both empires were entirely infantry, but well supplied, well-organized, and extremely aggressive and militaristic. Javelins, slings, spears and maces were used in battle.
Both empires had inherent instabilities
Both empires were fueled by corn.
Both empires have little to no seafaring, and instead stuck to the mountains and valleys in the center of the region.
Both empires conquered hundreds of cities in the region that resented their rule and taxation
Both empires were ended by Spanish invasions that capitalized on native divisions, introduced disease, and Spanish technology of guns, horses, and steel.
Both empires are misnamed-the Inka was the ruler of Tawantinsuyu, and the Aztecs adopted the name Mexica.
Both empires provided public education
Both Atahualpa and Moctezuma decided against confronting the Spanish militarily, allowing for the Spanish to take the Emperors hostage.
Attempts to restore the monarchy came after the capture and death of the emperor, but were too late.
Differences:
The Incas were bronze age, Aztecs were stone age
THe Incas assigned governors and shuffled conquered peoples around. There was a greater centralization than in Mexico
The Aztecs were a tributary empire, not a direct one.
The Aztecs had writing, while the Incas used Quipu
The Aztecs still had many rivals left unsubdued
The Inca used mostly potatoes while corn was far more dominant in Mexico.
The Inca had llamas, small but important livestock that made transport easier
The Inca had a sophisticated courier system of Chasquis along state-maintained roads
The Inca used bronze axes and halberds, with slings and maces as their main weapons alongside spears. The Aztecs used obsidian swords and glaives instead for close combat, and used javelins far more. Likewise, while Inca military relied on the unit’s experience and officer corps for their quality like the Romans, the Aztecs instead had a feudalistic division between the elite knights and commoners, with advancement by taking captives.
The Inca allowed women into their schools but not commoners. The Aztecs prohibited women but allowed for peasant men to also gain an education.
The diseases that destroyed the Incas came before the Spanish actually arrived in Peru, while the Spanish had been in Mexico for months before the plagues killed the emperor and populace.
Moctezuma’s mistake was trying to use generosity to awe the Spanish and try to coax them on his side, while Atahualpa’s was trying to awe them with his army rather than actually using it.
The Inca political crisis was a civil war between two brothers, while the Aztec’s was a three way duel between the King, the Priests, and the Aristocracy and military.
Answer:
Explanation:
The disputes that the colonists had with these three acts were angry these colonist were being taxed unfairly which in the futur lead to revolutionary war.
Answer:
Similarities--- Muslims, armies and contribution to the art.
differences--- languages and sects
Explanation:
Both empires taxed the non-Muslims living in their kingdom. Both fought with each other to gain power and increase their lands. Both have powerful armies which help them to expanding their lands. Both empires contributed in the field of art, literature and architecture. The main difference between them was that the Ottomans were Sunni while the Safavids were Shiite Muslims. They spoke different language, the Ottomans spoke Turkish while the Safavids spoke Persian language.
Answer:
large numbers of anxious people withdrew their deposits forcing banks to liquidate loans and often leading to bank failure
