They WOULD HAVE been treated with the same consideration as others, but inevitably their treatment was harsh, simply because they refused to accept Roman rule for long, and kept rebelling. Around the year 66, Agrippa, nominally king of the jews, delivered a great speech warning the Jews and pleading with them not to start an insurrection. Among other things, he pointed out that if they rebelled, their holy city and Temple might be destroyed, since by "sparing these things up till now, the Romans have received no thanks at all." Roman suppression of the various jewish revolts was often brutal, and led to great loss of life. Many rebels were killed in action or crucified during the various insurrections between 64 BCE and 135 CE, when the last one was put down. Ignoring agrippa proved very costly, since jerusalem and its temple were indeed destroyed. During Trajan's time, many rebels in the diaspora were killed, in cyprus etc. The crushing of the bar kochba revolt of 132-135 is said to have cost half a million jewish lives. Moreover, for nearly a century after 135, jews couldn't even live in jerusalem. Besides the repercussions of rebellion, jews were penalized for not worshipping the deified caesars. There was a special tax, the fiscus judaicus, levied on them alone.
The answer is that the piece of legislation from the First New Deal that created jobs for young men with the forestry department was the Civilian Conservation operated from 199 to 1942.
This was a voluntary work reliefe tha emplyed more than 3 million of unmarried men.
Australia and New Zealand are among the world’s top producers of "steel" since this resources is very common in the territories. Although they also produce lots of other goods.
Yes, I do believe that the government should have the right to limit peoples' individual rights. Though the wording of the sentence above may sound like I'm saying I believe the government is allowed to control people, that's the last thing I mean. People need rules and structure which is what the government provides. Imagine if there <em>wasn't</em> a government. There would be no soical order because people will have too much power and some will not use their civil liberties responsibly. I understand both sides, but overall, I do think the government should have the right to limit peoples' individual rights.
