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
barxatty [35]
3 years ago
6

40. Which of these situations was the direct result of the other three? * nations of Latin America won independence revolutions

occurred in North America and France the Napoleonic wars weakened Spain's power creoles and mestizos became discontented with Spanish rule​
History
1 answer:
Sonja [21]3 years ago
3 0

Answer: Nations of Latin America won independence

Explanation:

As Creoles and Mestizos became discontented with Spanish rule, they began to demand more self-governance from the Spanish which would eventually boil over to them asking for independence.

This was made easier when Napoleon invaded Spain during the Napoleonic wars and severely weakened Spain's power to hold onto its colonies. Revolutions in North America such as the American Revolution spurred some colonies to seek independence such as Haiti from France which went through its own Revolution as well.

These three factors allowed nations in Latin America to seek their independence and led to many getting it.

You might be interested in
What did Lilly ledbetter have to do with defending human rights
Sever21 [200]

Answer:

On April 14, 1938, Lilly Ledbetter was born in rural Alabama. After marrying Sergeant Major Charles Ledbetter, she had two children whom she needed to support.

So in 1979, she took a job working from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. as a shift manager and area manager at the local Goodyear plant. After being hired, Lilly was asked to sign the company contract policy that barred her from discussing pay rates with her co-workers.

In 1996, Lilly received a "Top Performance Award" but was still completely in the dark about the fact that she was paid far less for the same work as her male peers.

Two years later, in 1998, Lilly went about her normal routine and came into work an hour early to check her mail, when an anonymous note fell out. On the note, she saw her name next to her written salary of $3,727 a month. Below it were the names of three male co-workers with the same title, with salaries ranging from $4,286 to $5,236 a month.

After filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lilly set out to make things right. That journey would take her more than 10 years and all the way to the Supreme Court.

In her first trial, the jury ruled in her favor and awarded her back pay and the cost of compensatory and punitive damages. But Goodyear appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and won.

Goodyear argued that Lilly's claim was not valid under Title VII’s limitations period. This fine print states that an employee cannot challenge ongoing pay discrimination more than 180 days later, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced. Since Lilly had only received two paychecks within the 180 days of her claim, only two paychecks were admissible proof in a courtroom. As a result, the court ruled that there was insufficient legal evidence that proved Goodyear had been intending to discriminate against her.

Lilly's appeal made it all the way to the Supreme Court. But in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit decision and ruled against Lilly, citing Title VII again.

Not only did the decision allow pay discrimination to continue, it encouraged employers to benefit from it. With each discriminatorily reduced paycheck, employers continued to earn financial benefits from discrimination.

Justice Ginsberg wrote a dissenting opinion, which emphasized that it was up to Congress to correct the Court’s “parsimonious reading of Title VII.” Taking the rare step of reading her opinion from the bench, Justice Ginsberg instructed that “once again, the ball is in Congress’ court.”

Within the first month of 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed. Less than two years after the Ledbetter decision, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became the first law signed by President Obama.

The Act amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ensured that Americans subjected to unlawful pay discrimination are finally able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws. Each discriminatory paycheck (rather than the employer’s original decision to discriminate) resets the 180-day limit to file a claim.

Coincidentally, Lilly's birthday this year falls on Equal Pay Day. Equal Pay Day changes annually, symbolizing how far into the year women must work to earn the same amount that men earned in the previous year. We still have a long way to go but, thanks to advocates like Lilly Ledbetter, we continue to fight for equal pay.

Today, Lilly is a grandmother of four and says her proudest achievement is “having a bill named after her in Congress, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.”

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How were luthers criticism similar to previous criticisms of church doctrine?
sveta [45]

Answer:

Born in Eisleben, Germany, in 1483, Martin Luther went on to become one of Western history's most significant figures

8 0
3 years ago
How did the Virginia Plan improve the federal government established by the Articles of Confederation?
Annette [7]

The Virginia delegates proposed a strong national government that could make and enforce laws and collect taxes. The plan would establish a federal system of government under which the people would be governed by both the state and national governments

5 0
3 years ago
(no bot or link answers) [100 point + brainiest to whoever mets the standard] Describe the causes and consequences of conflict b
AURORKA [14]

Answer:

The colonization of Indians by non-Indian society exemplified just how lines got drawn on the land in the Pacific Northwest. It was not a clear-cut or precise process, and it was not a process that was seen the same way by all the parties involved. Policy toward Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest was an extension of the Indian policy developed at the national level by the U.S. government. In other words, the rules and regulations for dealing with Indians were established and administered by various federal officials based in Washington, D.C.—by superintendents of Indian affairs and Army officers, by Senators and Congressmen, by members of presidential administrations and Supreme Court justices. Yet western settlers—the residents of states, territories, and localities—attempted with some success to modify national Indian policy to suit their own ends. Moreover, the natives who were the objects of these policies also attempted to modify and resist them, again with a limited degree of success.

Joseph Lane

To explain the development of relations between Indians and non-Indians in the Pacific Northwest, then, one needs to keep in mind that there were federal points of view, settler points of view, and native points of view. The plural—"points of view"—is deliberate. It is also crucial to keep in mind that there was no unified perspective among any of the parties involved. Neither the officials of federal government, nor the settlers of the Northwest, nor the Indians of the region were unanimous in their thinking about and responses to American Indian policy as it was applied in the Pacific Northwest. (Indians from the same band or tribe sometimes ended up fighting one another; some women proved more sympathetic to Indians than men did; the U.S. Army was often much more restrained in dealing with natives than settler militias were.) This lack of agreement was surely one of the things that complicated, and to some extent worsened, relations between Indians and non-Indians. It makes generalizations about those relations tenuous.

Joseph Lane (right). (Reproduced in Johansen and Gates, Empire of the Columbia, New York, 1957. Photo courtesy of Special Collections, University of Oregon Library.) Portrait of Isaac I. Stevens (below). The federal Office of Indian Affairs assigned to Stevens the task of carrying out the new reservation policy in Washington Territory. (Special Collections, University of Washington, Portrait files.)

Isaac Stevens

Although it is risky, then, I want to offer the generalization that 19th-century America was an achieving, acquisitive, non-pluralistic, and ethnocentric society. It had tremendous confidence in its way of life, and particularly its political and economic systems, and it aspired to disseminate its ways to those who seemed in need of them or able to benefit from them—including Indians (and Mexicans and, at times, Canadians). The nation was tremendously expansive, in terms of both territory and economy. Its assorted political and economic blessings (at least for free, white, adult males) seemed both to justify and feed this expansionism. Thus expansion was viewed as both self-serving (it added to the material wealth of the country) and altruistic (it spread American democracy and capitalism to those without them). The nation's self-interest was thus perceived to coincide with its sense of mission and idealism.

American Indian policy bespoke this mixture of idealism and self-interest. White Americans proposed to dispossess natives and transform their cultures, and the vast majority of them remained confident throughout the century that these changes would be best for all concerned. Anglo-American society would take from Indians the land and other natural resources that would permit it to thrive, while Indians would in theory absorb the superior ways of white culture, including Christianity, capitalism, and republican government. For the first half of the 19th century, federal officials pursued this exchange largely with an Indian policy dominated by the idea of removal. Removal policy aimed to relocate tribes from east of the Mississippi River on lands to the west, assuming that over time the natives would be acculturated to white ways. There were numerous problems with this policy, of course. For our purposes, one of the key problems was that removal policy regarded lands west of the Mississippi as "permanent Indian country." By the 1840s, numerous non-Indians were moving both on to and across those lands, ending any chance that they would truly remain "Indian country." By midcentury the Office of Indian Affairs had begun devising another policy based on the idea of reservations. This institution, new at the federal level, has had a central role in relations between Northwest Indians and non-Indians since 1850.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the goverment force the Cherokee to leave Georgia?
skad [1K]
The government forced the Cherokee Indians to leave Georgia because of the need for arable land during the increasing growth of cotton agriculture in the Southeast, discovery of gold on the Cherokee land and the racial prejudice that many white southerners harbored toward American Indians. This Cherokee Removal happened in 1838 and 1839. The US troops expelled Cherokee Indians <span>from their ancestral homeland in the Southeast and removed them to the Indian Territory in what is now Oklahoma.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which event led to the capture of Richmond, the Confederate capital? the Shenandoah Valley Campaign the “March to the Sea” the c
    5·2 answers
  • which was a condition that existed in rome around 100 BC that contributed to the eventually downfall to the republic? A. a widen
    5·2 answers
  • Renaissance weapons were made more effective by : the airplane <br>bombs <br>gunpowder
    6·1 answer
  • How does this image reflect George Washington's views on government?
    5·2 answers
  • HELP!!! Why do many historians believe that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles created conditions that led to World War II?
    5·2 answers
  • Why did slavery exist in America? A deep explanation please.
    12·1 answer
  • 18. Today there are several areas throughout Canada where indigenous peoples have local or regional control. _______ became the
    12·1 answer
  • Describe Native American cultures at the time of European colonization.
    7·1 answer
  • 50 POINTS
    5·1 answer
  • Which of the following provides an example of how the principle of checks and balances works?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!