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
kenny6666 [7]
3 years ago
14

A. Polytheism is the belief in one god, while animism is the belief in many gods.

History
2 answers:
vampirchik [111]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

D is the correct answer

kap26 [50]3 years ago
6 0
The answer is D because POLY means many which is referring to many gods while animism is believing that objects in nature have spirits
You might be interested in
Why did the United States establish the Open Door policy?
olga55 [171]
Many great European powers had been exploiting China's weak economic system to enforce their own trade regulations for years. The United States simply wanted to join the fray, so the Open Door notes were sent to the European powers basically stating, "Hey, you guys can't own all of China, make sure that all countries get to trade equally with them."

Just as a side note, the Open Door policy with China was extremely hypocritical for the United States, as the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 basically stated that none of the European powers could interfere with the Western Hemisphere... While no one was allowed to touch the Americas, the United States was apparently allowed to mess with the rest of the world.
7 0
3 years ago
What happened to the Great Pyramid as Cairo increased in size and<br> population? *
blagie [28]

Answer:

Terms in this set (12)

Explanation:

What happened to the Great Pyramid as Cairo increased in size and population? F It started sinking into the desert sand. ... G Fortunately one man, the archaeologist Zahi Hawass, made it his life's goal to restore the Great Pyramid and the smaller pyramids that surround it.

5 0
3 years ago
What was the significance of the Sacco and Vanzetti case?
zzz [600]

Answer:

Sacco and Vanzetti case

Explanation:

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti linked in shooting in a Shoe company in 1927. Both were put on trial and executed. The outcome of the executions resulted in nativist attitudes toward working-class immigrants. The immigrants ruined their reputation after the capture of both the Italian men because they believed to be the destroyer of American society through anarchists.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why do you think the United States has a federal type of government?
enyata [817]
Yes, they do it is used to resolve state conflicts like a state crime.

Hope This Helps!!
6 0
3 years ago
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • The Columbian Exchange MOST LIKELY resulted in
    5·1 answer
  • During World War One, why were the Germans unable to finish the war on the western front
    13·1 answer
  • In a well written paragraph response, explain how the lives of women changed considerably during World War One
    8·1 answer
  • Has US foreign policy been a positive or a negative for international diplomacy, since 1980?
    5·1 answer
  • Based on this graph, during which period did the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing price change most drastically?
    15·2 answers
  • Please please help me
    15·1 answer
  • What is Copeland's opinion of John Brown?
    11·1 answer
  • What was the toleration act of 1649?
    14·2 answers
  • write a monologue about Malcolm X with a introduction,childhood,how he made a difference his character traits in a paragraph Ple
    9·1 answer
  • Which word describes doing away with something entirely?
    15·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!