Chavez's legacy in Venezuela can be viewed in two totally contrasting ways, depending on who will be writing the history.
Explanation:
Hugo Chavez was one of the last communist leaders in the world, led by communism, which unlike the majority of the communist leaders, actually had a lot of support by the people. He was leader of Venezuela for long time, and his reign was only ended because he died. As a typical communist leader, Chavez wanted to have everything under control, including the resources of the country, eliminating and suppressing any opposition, and trying to make the country as self-sustaining as possible.
The majority of the people supported him, and one of the main reasons for that was that he openly opposed the United States and the corporations, and nationalized the oil and natural gas reserves. The people of Venezuela had very bad feelings for the United States because of their interference in their country, and Chavez used it to the maximum.
When future history books are written, how would Chavez be interpreted will depended mostly on who will write the history books, as well as the political climate in the country. It can range anywhere from portraying him as national hero that protected the country, its interest, and was beloved by the people, to a brutal tyrant that isolated the country, suppressed the people, and made Venezuela stagnate.
Learn more about communist economies brainly.com/question/12637106
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
The rabbit mouse and squirrel wouldn't point to the red foxes due to the fact that the number of red foxes were reduced meaning that there wouldn't be as many kills from them.
Explanation:
Florida has 1,350 miles of coastline or shoreline.
California has 840 miles of shoreline.
Texas has 367 miles of shoreline.
Massachusetts has 192 miles of shoreline.
So the correct answer is Florida.
Answer:
1. Imagine you were an archaeologist working with Sir Leonard Woolley in Iraq. Which of the discoveries do you think was the most exciting? Which discovery helped you most in determining what had happened to the people whose remains you found? Explain your answer.
Answer: I did a little more research about this I think that when I he found 1800 tombs at a Sumer grave and out of all those found 12 royal graves do you know how hard those are to find and he got twelve of them.
2. Suppose you were a historian studying ancient Sumer. How would your work be different from Woolley’s work?
Answer: Woolley was an archeologist if you want to be a historian you have to be kind of on that line but you study it more and figure out what it made of and all that stuff.
3. Sir Leonard Woolley worked on excavating Ur for twelve years. What years were they?
Answer: 1922 to 1934
4. What kinds of changes do you think will occur in the work of archaeologists in the next hundred years?
Answer: I think that archaeologist will find house, rock, and more fossils and maybe even plant that have been console in the soil.
5. Which work would you prefer, the work of the historian or the archaeologist? Why?
Answer: I will like to be an archaeologist is better because I can feel the stuff and be happy that I have found it.
Explanation: I did a lot of research to answer this question. Maybe next time go to Wikipedia it maybe be long to read but it worth It when you get an A RIGHT!
Answer:
The big difference between a photograph and maps are that maps shows an illustration of a vertical plan of a region, while a photograph presents a realistic image.
Explanation:
