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
Nezavi [6.7K]
2 years ago
13

The study of man is called: anthropology history sociology psychology

History
2 answers:
Molodets [167]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

Anthropology

Explanation:

Anthropology is the study of human biology, and looks over human behavior.

NISA [10]2 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Ok

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Why do you think the kkk experience a resurgence in the 1920s?
Crank

Answer:

<em>The KKK experienced  a resurgence in the 1920s because of its strong ties with the political atmosphere of the 1920s, and its guise of protecting morals and its expanded vigilante justice services beyond the usual Anglo-Saxon Protestantism of blacks, Jews, Catholics and immigrants, etc, to those they now perceived as lawbreakers like illegal gin runners, unfaithful spouses, corrupt public office holders, etc. They also introduced paid "kleagles" which inspired  membership by millions of people.</em>

Explanation:

<em>During the 1920s, KKK experienced a resurgence by blending of their extreme acts with common acts</em>. With this new methods of administration, they were able to get sponsorship and sympathy from the general white populace, and were no longer seen as masked extremists but rather as a community fraternity organisation. <em>To make them look like they were on the side of the law, the KKK got involved with local vigilante services, and prosecuted many bootleggers and corrupt politicians and even perceived cheating wives, inciting what would appear as a form of moral guidance</em>. However, with all these new reforms and methods, their lynching and persecution of minority groups still remained, and a series of feuds within its political circle led to its demise late in the 1920s

8 0
3 years ago
Help please!!
Gennadij [26K]

One of the many, many problems Jeb Bush faces in his quest for the Oval Office is his break from Republican orthodoxy on president Ronald Reagan's legacy. In 2012, Bush told a group of reporters that, in today's GOP, Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did"— namely, working with Democrats to pass legislation. He added that Reagan would struggle to secure the GOP nomination today.

Bush was lambasted by fellow conservatives for his comments, but he had a point: If you judge him by the uncompromising small government standards of today's GOP, Reagan was a disaster. Here are a few charts that show why.

Under Reagan, the national debt almost tripled, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988:

Reagan ended his 1988 farewell speech<span> with the memorable line, "man is not free unless government is limited." The line is still a rallying cry for the right wing, but the speech came at the end of a long period of government expansion. Under Reagan, the federal workforce increased by about 324,000 to almost 5.3 million people. (The new hires weren't just soldiers to fight the communists, either: uniformed military personnel only accounted for 26 percent of the increase.) In 2012, the federal government employed almost a million fewer people than it did in the last year of Reagan's presidency.</span>

4 0
3 years ago
Explain what the great compromise was? <br><br> Help me please
grin007 [14]

Answer:

July 16, 1987, began with a light breeze, a cloudless sky, and a spirit of celebration. On that day, 200 senators and representatives boarded a special train for a journey to Philadelphia to celebrate a singular congressional anniversary.

Exactly 200 years earlier, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, meeting at Independence Hall, had reached a supremely important agreement. Their so-called Great Compromise (or Connecticut Compromise in honor of its architects, Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth) provided a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives each state would be assigned a number of seats in proportion to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. Today, we take this arrangement for granted; in the wilting-hot summer of 1787, it was a new idea.

In the weeks before July 16, 1787, the framers had made several important decisions about the Senate’s structure. They turned aside a proposal to have the House of Representatives elect senators from lists submitted by the individual state legislatures and agreed that those legislatures should elect their own senators.

By July 16, the convention had already set the minimum age for senators at 30 and the term length at six years, as opposed to 25 for House members, with two-year terms. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on “the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character,” would allow the Senate “to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch.”

The issue of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters—except those involving money.

Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin’s proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a heart-stopping margin of one vote. As the 1987 celebrants duly noted, without that vote, there would likely have been no Constitution.

Explanation:

Hope I helped!

3 0
2 years ago
Why is the first-hand account, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano important?
ale4655 [162]

Answer:

As a whole, Equiano's work shows both broad human compassion and racism.He published his autobiography, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano (1789), which depicted the horrors of slavery. It went through nine editions in his lifetime and helped gain passage of the British Slave Trade Act 1807, which abolished the slave trade.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Select the founders for the colony of New Jersey.
Tems11 [23]
Berkleley and Carteret
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which of the following regions was subject to European imperialism in the 1800's
    6·2 answers
  • Which of the following statements is true? It was against the law for masters to beat their apprentices. Few states passed black
    14·2 answers
  • Which of the following tasks was NOT likely assigned to enslaved African Americans who lived in the North?
    9·1 answer
  • Why did the Soviets face greater resistance from the mujahedeen than they expected? Check all that apply.
    14·2 answers
  • List the major specialties in social science. Which one interests you the most? Why?
    8·1 answer
  • Use the quote to answer the question that follows. "(We will provide) a safe, secure and high quality system of free public scho
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following accomplishments is
    10·2 answers
  • What is a secondary source?
    13·2 answers
  • What did the Nortern Thenaissance<br> Contribute to world civilization?
    7·1 answer
  • Which northwest ordiance will later appear on the bill of rights
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!