1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
frez [133]
2 years ago
11

How did the boundaries of the united states change during the 1840s?​

History
1 answer:
kipiarov [429]2 years ago
3 0

Answer:Texas became a state, Mexico lost nearly all its territory, and Britain gave up its claim to the Oregon Country below the 49th parallel. Stress that between 1846 and 1848 the United States gained more than one million square miles of territory

Explanation:

You might be interested in
How did the Emancipation Proclamation affect foreign relations?
jasenka [17]
It influenced other country's to do the same
4 0
2 years ago
Why did New Jersey delegates object to Virgina plan ?
dalvyx [7]
New Jersey objected it because the representation was proportional, small states would have fewer votes in Congress than the large states.


8 0
3 years ago
Select all that apply.
matrenka [14]

Answer:

The USA was afraid that communism would spread to South Vietnam and then the rest of Asia.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Explain what gave other Europeans the courage to begin fighting against their own oppressive leaders.
yan [13]
This chapter, which analyses the theories of cultural action which develop from antidialogical and dialogical matrices, will make frequent reference to points presented in the previous chapters, either to expand these points or to clarify new affirmations.

I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.

Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting which they cannot transcend. Hence, each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves.

But human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. It cannot, as I stressed in chapter 2, be reduced to either verbalism or activism.

Lenin's famous statement: "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1 means that a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor adtivism, but rather with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed. The revolutionary effort to transform these structures radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and the oppressed as mere doers.

If true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action, this theory cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process. The leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated—and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.

The leaders do bear the responsibility for coordination and, at times, direction—but leaders who deny praxis to the oppressed thereby invalidate their own praxis. By imposing their word on others, they falsify that word and establish a contradiction between their methods and their objectives. If they are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot proceed without the action and reflection of others.

Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.

Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
5 0
3 years ago
Should persons whose religious sabbath falls on a day other than sunday be excused from working on their sabbath?
kati45 [8]

Answer:

yes

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Secondary sources would be valuable to a historian in order to provide
    14·1 answer
  • In 1933, Hitler took action against Jewish people in Germany by
    10·1 answer
  • Bob dylan believed that ______________ were changing the world for the better.
    5·2 answers
  • Two important developments of Charles II's reign included:
    9·2 answers
  • Select all that apply.
    10·2 answers
  • What was the name given to Gorbechev’s policy of political openness?
    12·1 answer
  • The women's rights movement _________
    13·1 answer
  • Who made the rules in the middle ages?
    7·1 answer
  • The cartoon comments on tactics used to
    7·1 answer
  • Place the following events in the correct order in which they took place.
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!