They answer is B) <span>They were sophisticated socially
</span>
and
D) Their craftsmanship was excellent
One of the first Europeans who traveled and lived in Japan were highly impressed. Unlike the new world, Japan was seen as thriving civilization with moral code of conducts, a sophisticated social structure and amazing craftsmanship.
This is one the many reasons why Japan was not seen as an Island that could be or even should be colonized by Europeans.
I'd say it is B, but I'm not entirely sure.
<span>The most basic difference lies in their view of human nature. For Hobbes, humans are eager of power and under the state of nature we tend to kill each other. For this reason, we need a social contract (in order to survive). For Locke, the state of nature is not as pessimistic as Hobbes. We can colaborate, but the problem is in property. Locke wrote something like when we have issues of who is the owner of what (specially under scarcity) we need the social contract protecting our work materialized as property.
I recommend you Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It is everything there and quite clearer than I have tried to explain it.</span>
The British weren't very close with the Indians, who played a very important role during the war. The french, however, had many Indian allies. but, England did gain the trust of the Iroquois. also, the french colonies were under one united government, as the British were broken into 13 separate governments. during the war, unity was key.
The meaning of this quote "A leader is best when people barely know he exists; when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say; we did it ourselves" means if the leader is unknown to many people once he has finished or achieved a remarkable goal other people (such as Laozi) can steal the glory and be remembered for something they didn't do.
