The answer to this question is the public recognize their determination
A is most likely right because a lot modern European countries get their borders from cultural and linguistic boundaries after old empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany split up. Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Slovenia, just to name a few, were ethnic groups without countries before WW1.
B: isn't true, just look at eastern Europe in the 17th century, tons of ethnic groups living in one country. Even with more immigration to the Europe, most immigrants assimilate into European cultures.
C: Although geography can influence political borders to varying degrees, European nations don't strictly follow physical geographic features to my knowledge. There are a lot of borders based off of rivers you can see have stayed the same despite the rivers moving (Serbia and Croatia's border is a prime example)
D: I don't know what 'define' means in this context, but if it means religion and geography are the main reasons Europe get's their borders is just flat out wrong. We already talked about geography, but religion doesn't effect European borders since most European countries are christians and are secular. The only example I can think off the top of my head of religion affecting borders is in Ireland when they separated the protestant north from the rest of the island which was catholic.
Hope this helped you out :)
Yes,
oligarchy fits as a description of South African government under the system of apartheid. In the
political philosophy of Aristotle, "
aristocracy" is "rule by the excellent ones," and in certain eras of history or in some societies, one group or another has been portrayed as more "excellent" and thus more favorable for serving as governors. In Aristotle's political thought, an
"oligarchy" or "rule by a few" is a corruption of the idea of aristocracy. But Aristotle was biased, believing that by nature some persons are more excellent than others, that some are more suited by nature to be followers, not leaders. (Aristotle used such logic in defending the institution of slavery, for instance.) Today,
we might argue that any sort of "aristocracy" or elitism is always an oligarchy, an arbitrary system in which a few dominate over the many because of factors that can't rationally be defended.For another answer on a similar question, read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9475348#readmore
Answer:
<u>C</u><u>a</u><u>l</u><u>m</u><u> </u><u>i</u><u>s</u><u> </u><u>a</u><u> </u><u>s</u><u>o</u><u>l</u><u>u</u><u>t</u><u>i</u><u>o</u><u>n</u><u> </u><u>o</u><u>f</u><u> </u><u>e</u><u>v</u><u>e</u><u>r</u><u>y</u><u>t</u><u>h</u><u>i</u><u>n</u><u>g</u><u>.</u><u>S</u><u>t</u><u>a</u><u>y</u><u> </u><u>c</u><u>a</u><u>l</u><u>m</u><u> </u><u>a</u><u>n</u><u>d</u><u> </u><u>s</u><u>a</u><u>t</u><u>i</u><u>s</u><u>f</u><u>i</u><u>e</u><u>d</u><u>.</u>
Yes ,I am not aHenry VIII's wife.
<u>A</u><u>c</u><u>t</u><u>u</u><u>a</u><u>l</u><u>l</u><u>y</u><u>:</u>
<u>Henry VIII's wife</u><u> </u><u>are</u><u>:</u>
- Catherine parr
- Catherine Howard
- Anne of Cleves
- Jane Seymour
- Anne Boleyn
- Catherine of argons