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
blagie [28]
3 years ago
9

Activity

History
1 answer:
Vaselesa [24]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

The world has transformed rapidly in the decade since the end of the Cold War. An old system is gone and, although it is easy to identify what has changed, it is not yet clear that a new system has taken its place. Old patterns have come unstuck, and if new patterns are emerging, it is still too soon to define them clearly. The list of potentially epoch-making changes is familiar by now: the end of an era of bipolarity, a new wave of democratization, increasing globalization of information and economic power, more frequent efforts at international coordination of security policy, a rash of sometimes-violent expressions of claims to rights based on cultural identity, and a redefinition of sovereignty that imposes on states new responsibilities to their citizens and the world community.1

These transformations are changing much in the world, including, it seems, the shape of organized violence and the ways in which governments and others try to set its limits. One indication of change is the noteworthy decrease in the frequency and death toll of international wars in the 1990s. Subnational ethnic and religious conflicts, however, have been so intense that the first post-Cold War decade was marked by enough deadly lower-intensity conflicts to make it the bloodiest since the advent of nuclear weapons (Wallensteen and Sollenberg, 1996). It is still too soon to tell whether this shift in the most lethal type of warfare is a lasting change: the continued presence of contested borders between militarily potent states—in Korea, Kashmir, Taiwan, and the Middle East—gives reason to postpone judgment. It seems likely, though, that efforts to pre-

Explanation:

i thin this is right but im not sure

hope this helps

have a good night

You might be interested in
16.1.2 Quiz: The Growth of Big Business
OleMash [197]

Answer: C. They gave them lots of land to build the tracks on.

Explanation:

Option A is incorrect because railroads didn´t need governmental permission to pay more money to their workers. Option B is incorrect because raising taxes would not have helped them made more money. And slave labor from the American South was not used specifically for this purpose. It was by granting public domain land to the railroads that the United States government encouraged the construction of railroads between 1850 and 1871 because there was a strong interest in building a transportation system that could connect the East and West Coast with the rest of the country.

5 0
3 years ago
Why did the Framers of the Constitution put the regulation of monetary policy in the hands of the federal government instead of
dsp73
The Framers of the Constitution put the regulation of monetary policy in the hands of the federal government instead of the states because they wanted the nation to have a unified currency. The answer to your question is A. I hope that this is the answer that you were looking for and it has helped you.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What would an illegitimate government look like​
AVprozaik [17]

legitimate government. A government generally acknowledged as being in control of a nation and deserving formal recognition, which is symbolized by the exchange of diplomats between that government and the governments of other countries.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which two classes of people would historians most likely thank for leaving written records of early civilizations? Select all th
mario62 [17]
Scribes and priests.
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was France able to hold onto its vast North American domain against Spanish and English expansion? ​​ The French maintained
Lera25 [3.4K]
There are all kinds of stories of hostilities between early American colonists and the Native people who were already there. However, these hostilities did not occur with every European group who came. The French are a notable exception to this, and in fact, enjoyed excellent relations with the Natives almost from the very beginning.

Why were the French different? The main reason is that they did not try to change the Natives. They also did not compete with the Natives for land. When the French first came to the Americas in the 1530s and 1540s to engage in seasonal fur trading, they immediately established strong trading ties with the local Natives they found there. The Natives already dealt extensively in furs.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Who was the first and only president to walk to and from his inauguration?
    15·1 answer
  • What are the first 10 Amendments called? *
    12·1 answer
  • In which two ways would control over Italy help the Allied forces?
    11·1 answer
  • I will crown you
    6·2 answers
  • Why did Sam Houston convince the delegates to remain at the constitutional convention instead of joining the fight at the Alamo?
    6·1 answer
  • 50 POINTS! What were the key ideas expressed in Machiavelli’s The Prince
    10·1 answer
  • Describe the changes in American culture in the following areas during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries:
    15·2 answers
  • 7. What scientific theory did Aryabhata propose
    15·1 answer
  • Who was the chief architect of the Great Compromise
    8·1 answer
  • Who did NOT want labor unions to
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!