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
Kaylis [27]
2 years ago
13

Why was the bill in this cartoon important to President Franklin D. Roosevelt?

History
1 answer:
34kurt2 years ago
5 0
2 he wanted to strengthen federal ..etc
You might be interested in
(no bot or link answers) [100 point + brainiest to whoever mets the standard] Describe the causes and consequences of conflict b
AURORKA [14]

Answer:

The colonization of Indians by non-Indian society exemplified just how lines got drawn on the land in the Pacific Northwest. It was not a clear-cut or precise process, and it was not a process that was seen the same way by all the parties involved. Policy toward Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest was an extension of the Indian policy developed at the national level by the U.S. government. In other words, the rules and regulations for dealing with Indians were established and administered by various federal officials based in Washington, D.C.—by superintendents of Indian affairs and Army officers, by Senators and Congressmen, by members of presidential administrations and Supreme Court justices. Yet western settlers—the residents of states, territories, and localities—attempted with some success to modify national Indian policy to suit their own ends. Moreover, the natives who were the objects of these policies also attempted to modify and resist them, again with a limited degree of success.

Joseph Lane

To explain the development of relations between Indians and non-Indians in the Pacific Northwest, then, one needs to keep in mind that there were federal points of view, settler points of view, and native points of view. The plural—"points of view"—is deliberate. It is also crucial to keep in mind that there was no unified perspective among any of the parties involved. Neither the officials of federal government, nor the settlers of the Northwest, nor the Indians of the region were unanimous in their thinking about and responses to American Indian policy as it was applied in the Pacific Northwest. (Indians from the same band or tribe sometimes ended up fighting one another; some women proved more sympathetic to Indians than men did; the U.S. Army was often much more restrained in dealing with natives than settler militias were.) This lack of agreement was surely one of the things that complicated, and to some extent worsened, relations between Indians and non-Indians. It makes generalizations about those relations tenuous.

Joseph Lane (right). (Reproduced in Johansen and Gates, Empire of the Columbia, New York, 1957. Photo courtesy of Special Collections, University of Oregon Library.) Portrait of Isaac I. Stevens (below). The federal Office of Indian Affairs assigned to Stevens the task of carrying out the new reservation policy in Washington Territory. (Special Collections, University of Washington, Portrait files.)

Isaac Stevens

Although it is risky, then, I want to offer the generalization that 19th-century America was an achieving, acquisitive, non-pluralistic, and ethnocentric society. It had tremendous confidence in its way of life, and particularly its political and economic systems, and it aspired to disseminate its ways to those who seemed in need of them or able to benefit from them—including Indians (and Mexicans and, at times, Canadians). The nation was tremendously expansive, in terms of both territory and economy. Its assorted political and economic blessings (at least for free, white, adult males) seemed both to justify and feed this expansionism. Thus expansion was viewed as both self-serving (it added to the material wealth of the country) and altruistic (it spread American democracy and capitalism to those without them). The nation's self-interest was thus perceived to coincide with its sense of mission and idealism.

American Indian policy bespoke this mixture of idealism and self-interest. White Americans proposed to dispossess natives and transform their cultures, and the vast majority of them remained confident throughout the century that these changes would be best for all concerned. Anglo-American society would take from Indians the land and other natural resources that would permit it to thrive, while Indians would in theory absorb the superior ways of white culture, including Christianity, capitalism, and republican government. For the first half of the 19th century, federal officials pursued this exchange largely with an Indian policy dominated by the idea of removal. Removal policy aimed to relocate tribes from east of the Mississippi River on lands to the west, assuming that over time the natives would be acculturated to white ways. There were numerous problems with this policy, of course. For our purposes, one of the key problems was that removal policy regarded lands west of the Mississippi as "permanent Indian country." By the 1840s, numerous non-Indians were moving both on to and across those lands, ending any chance that they would truly remain "Indian country." By midcentury the Office of Indian Affairs had begun devising another policy based on the idea of reservations. This institution, new at the federal level, has had a central role in relations between Northwest Indians and non-Indians since 1850.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Before you begin your speech, pick a revolutionary leader from Latin America or the Caribbean that has been discussed in this un
mariarad [96]

Answer:

Um... Simón Bolivar? Che Guevara? Fidel Castro? Albizu Campos?

Explanation:

I don't know the exact unit which was discussed here. However, these are all the revolutionary leaders from Latin America that I can think of. Hopefully this helps.

6 0
1 year ago
Did Port of New Orleans was important to the United States because ?
deff fn [24]
The answer is B because farmers and merchants needed to get their food from the east coast
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did betty friedan and gloria steinem contribute to the feminist movement during the 1960s and 1970s?
murzikaleks [220]

Answer:

Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem are considered mothers and forerunners of the feminist movement in the United States that began in the twentieth century and is now a wave that covers several countries in the world in the struggle for women's freedom to decide their own fate.

These two women gave great contributions to the feminist movement and were scandalous in their time, however, their legacy remains in force and is summarized below:

<h2>Betty Friedan  </h2>

She was a social psychologist who rose to fame in 1963 with the publication of her book <em>"The mystique of femininity"</em>, which expressed the general feeling of women who felt imprisoned in their roles as mothers and housewives to fulfill what "was established for them".

This book was written based on her own experiences, since she lived in the decade of the 50s, in the postwar society, where it was established that the greatest desire of a woman was to marry and have children. In fact, she had to abandon jobs and aspirations when she got married. This is how in her book she affirms that the reality was different, with cities full of homes with frustrated women.

Notably, this book was very controversial for her time, but this gave her the impetus to become the co-founder and first president of NOW (National Organization of Women) in 1966.

<h2>Gloria Steinem </h2>

She is a famous journalist and writer born in the United States, is considered a role model for the feminist movement together with Friedan, although some do not consider her the prototype of a feminist woman.

Steinem has published several articles, but the one that made her a leader of the feminist movement was the one published in 1969, entitled<em> "After Black Power, Women's Liberation". </em>

She is also a symbol of the fight against cancer to have overcome the breast cancer diagnosed in 1986.

6 0
3 years ago
Based on the chart, what can you conclude about how Texas Medical Center has affected Houston’s economy over time?A)It has contr
Gwar [14]
Yup that’s right z’n:)
H ,hm7;’my gngngntnybtbtn
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What caused the mass extinction at the end of the mesozoic era
    7·1 answer
  • If the Shire is better than Mordor at producing everything, would the Shire gain anything by trading with Mordor? Why or why not
    5·1 answer
  • How might using the same weight and measurements throughout china have improved the empire
    6·1 answer
  • Once the US has air dominance using the P-51, what do they begin to target and WHY?
    9·1 answer
  • Which statement is true about an early European explorer and the route he took?
    14·2 answers
  • - 3 + 10.8 IS:<br> irrational<br> rational
    12·1 answer
  • What was the significance of the Bill of Rights when it was first adopted, and why does it remain
    10·1 answer
  • Meaning and how is it propaganda?
    11·1 answer
  • Abraham lived in one of the city-states called Larsa.<br><br><br> True or False?
    13·1 answer
  • Identify and explain the difference of the Aztecs from the Mayan empire​
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!