Answer:
No. We want everyone to be treated equally but that will never happen. People are always going to judge by the color of your skin or what you look like. It is a sad world that we live in.
Explanation:
Answer:
1. fRench and Indian war, Boston Massacre, battle if Lexington and Concord
2. (it doesnt say but the Boston Massacre is debatable depending on the person you talk to.)
3. for the Boston Massacre, a riot broke out and british troops tried calming things down but the people kept trying to harm the troops so it led to the troops shooting the crowd and killing and injuring a few people.
I'm not 100% sure but I think it is B
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
The correct answer is -
Ten elected generals were responsible for carrying on the work of the Assembly and Council.
Paid juries of citizens heard legal cases and made decisions.
Power was in the hands of the people and all citizens were equal before the law.
Explanation:
Athenian democracy is a form of direct democracy in ancient Greece that was practiced in Athens for about 100 years. It is developed around the 6th century and known as the first democracy of the world. The three major characteristics are as follows-
1. Ten elected generals were responsible for carrying on the work of the Assembly and Council.
2. All free males over 18 born to Athenian parents were citizens.
3 Paid juries of citizens heard legal cases and made decisions.
4. All citizens served in the Assembly.
5. The Council of Athens carried on the daily business of the city.
6. Power was in the hands of the people and all citizens were equal before the law.
Answer:
An arms race denotes a rapid increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military power by rival states in peacetime. The first modern arms race took place when France and Russia challenged the naval superiority of Britain in the late nineteenth century. Germany’s attempt to surpass Britain’s fleet spilled over into World War I, while tensions after the war between the United States, Britain and Japan resulted in the first major arms-limitation treaty at the Washington Conference. The buildup of arms was also a characteristic of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, though the development of nuclear weapons changed the stakes for the par
Over the past century, the arms race metaphor has assumed a prominent place in public discussion of military affairs. But even more than the other colorful metaphors of security studies–balance of power, escalation, and the like–it may cloud rather than clarify understanding of the dynamics of international rivalries.
An arms race denotes a rapid, competitive increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military or naval power by rival states in peacetime. What it connotes is a game with a logic of its own. Typically, in popular depictions of arms races, the political calculations that start and regulate the pace of the game remain obscure. As Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., has noted, “The strange result is that the activity of the other side, and not one’s own resources, plans, and motives, becomes the determinant of one’s behavior.” And what constitutes the “finish line” of the game is the province of assertion, rather than analysis. Many onlookers, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood of war increases as the accumulation of arms proceeds apace.
Explanation:
