Answer:
This question seems to point to the overall trajectory of US government foreign policy in the 19th century. One of the most enduring legacies of Washington's Farewell Address was the suggestion that the US government withhold from pledging permanent allegiances or alliances with foreign countries.
Explanation:
Monroe and the Farewell Address
James Monroe was the fifth president of the United States (from 1817 to 1825) and he had worked as a foreign minister and ambassador to France during Washington's government. President Monroe institution what would later be known as the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. It stated that the United States would not intervene in European affairs, thus extending the ideas of non-alliance that had been emphasized by Washington in his farewell address. There would be no intervention by the USA in European affairs so long as no one in Europe sought to colonize or otherwise interfere with the Latin American nations in the Western Hemisphere that were newly independent.
Theodore Roosevelt
If Monroe's foreign policy approach marked the consolidation of Washington's views on alliances and allegiances to foreign powers as embodied in the Farewell Address, one of the legacies of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency is that it ends this era of non-intervention and isolationism. Teddy Roosevelt was president of the United States from 1901-1909. The foreign policy endeavors undertaken by Teddy Roosevelt were not neutral or isolationist, although he continued to make claims to be non-interventionist in domestic politics because this was now an entrenched political position on the part of the United States as a whole. Roosevelt believed that the United States was becoming a world power after the Spanish–American War, so he sought ways to assert influence abroad. He mediated and hosted discussions to end the Russo-Japanese war, for example. Teddy Roosevelt is famous for using Big Stick Diplomacy so using the threat of force or strong-handed measures. He also instituted what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which allowed the US to act a policing force in the Western Hemisphere and that European interests had to use the United States as an intermediary when taking up issues with Latin American nations.
Explanation:
In simpler words, the multi-part question is asking for you to first analyze the three sources, then pick a side and have knowledge to defend your point on the question 'to what extent should nations pursue their national interests'.
In source 1, it shows that the majority of Canadians are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, with 36% voting for, 5% unsure, and 59% voting against.
Source two is clearly depicting the nazi's, at a rally held in Nuremberg. Although the source does not state if the protesters are pro or against Nazi regime, I am assuming they are pro. This would lead to the assumption that the people of Nuremberg are pro-Nazi empire.
The source 3 is a timeline, that goes from 1920 to 2005. This time period is very significant, because it captures many important battles, such as world war 2, Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq invasion.
After reading these three sources, you must decide if you think it is good for nations to pursue their national interests, or bad.
Hope this long explanation helped clarify the troubling question for you!
Answer:
The Correct Answer is
The exchange permanently changed the natural and human environments
Explanation:
Columbus underwent deep voyages and discovered present-day America. He also discovered the marine route which associated the old Eastern world to the new Western world.
After the establishment of the Sea route there was an exchange of goods with other countries started. But the negative impact was that people of Eurasia were not healthy with high levels of immunity.
The interchange of food supplies initiated the arrival of dangerous diseases too and a major part of the European, Native American, and Asian population died causing a shortage of human labor, this gradually leads to the slavery of Africans.
