The agricultural revolution caused mortality rates to plummet and population to dramatically increase. Due to the surplus of food, the amount of deaths decreased and this allowed people to live for a longer amount of time and have more children to feed.
Well, as the population of the world increased more people could fill job positions, decreasing the need for a person to learn more than one skill. This allowed for more people to focus one industry to advance. Hope it helped, could you give me a brainliest?
Answer:
Both sources present the dangers that would occur if Singapore became an independent state.
Explanation:
The two sources present the danger that Malaysia would be in if Singapore became an independent and communist state. This concern began with preparations for Singapore to separate from the British Empire and merge with Malaysia. The problem was that communist ideologies were very influential in Singapore, but were prevented from being established because of the presence of the British Empire. However, once singapore became an independent state, communist ideologies could dominate and cause Singapore to try to dominate malaysia and not merge.
In this case, we can confirm that the similarity of these two sources is the subject that they address, which is the same.
A: The Civil War
Assuming that you're talking about the American (U.S) civil war, that is.
The civil war was a conflict between the rights of the (slave owning) states and the national government. A war about state rights.
The war of 1812 was between 2 independent, sovereign nations.
The great depression was just an economic thing.
The northwest ordnance, I have the least knowledge of, but it still wasn't between states and the national government.
Hope this helps.
In his Politics, Aristotle divides government into 6 kinds, 3 good and 3 bad. The good forms are monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, while the bad forms are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Each of the good forms has the possibility of turning into its bad form - i.e., monarchy into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy.
Seeing that democracy is listed in the "bad camp", people automatically assume that Aristotle was anti-democratic. But this is an over-simplification.
By democracy, Aristotle really means mob rule. Polity corresponds more to what we'd think of as modern democracy - a stable, orderly institution that represents and protects the people. For instance, polity is what existed in Athens during its Golden Age. Aristotle didn't oppose this by any means.
Indeed, unlike his teacher Plato, who sought to create an ideal model of the state ruled by philosopher-kings, Aristotle thought that the best form of government was determined by the situation. For a virtuous people, polity could very well be the best form of government; for a subservient people (and Aristotle believed that such people existed), monarchy or tyranny might be the natural state of affairs.
