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
Licemer1 [7]
3 years ago
14

In whose reign did Sultanate reach its farthest extent?

History
1 answer:
Maru [420]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

Muhammad Bin Tughlaq

Explanation:

Complete answer: The Sultan of Delhi, Muhammad Bin Tughlaq ruled from 1325-1351. It is during his rule that the Delhi Sultanate reached its farthest extent. It marched into a large part of the Indian subcontinent. He defeated his rivals and captured many cities.

You might be interested in
Why was galileo accused of being a heretic?
Lynna [10]
Galileo was<span> ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed </span>heretical<span>by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the </span>accused<span> be imprisoned and secluded during the trial. hope this helps</span>
7 0
2 years ago
Can someone help me I’m stuck
Snezhnost [94]

Answer:

The 3/5 compromise

C.

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
Why do you think Geronimo reacted as he did ? 20 points!!!
g100num [7]

Answer:

A,C, and D

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)
nadezda [96]

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

7 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:
  • what did american indians agree to do in exchange for the food and clothing offered by Spanish missions.
    6·1 answer
  • During the Cold War, U.S.-aligned states were part of NATO, whereas Soviet-aligned states were part of ,... I need help ASAP!
    8·1 answer
  • How does Lucas say the signers of the Declaration of Independence created the sense that war was inevitable?
    7·1 answer
  • Ships could reach the port of St. Petersburg via the Baltic Sea. Where is that sea?
    12·2 answers
  • What is one result of the supreme courts dicisons in the mcculloch v. Maryland
    8·1 answer
  • How many major culture regions are found within the colony of Nigeria?
    13·1 answer
  • How did NATO change lives of people living in post ww2 europe?
    12·1 answer
  • Russian Revolution
    13·2 answers
  • What was one major effect of the spread of railroads throughout Great Britain
    11·2 answers
  • Does anyone wanna go out with me here what I look like
    13·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!