Answer:
While Native Americans and English settlers in the New England territories first attempted a mutual relationship based on trade and a shared dedication to spirituality, soon disease and other conflicts led to a deteriorated relationship and, eventually, the First Indian War.
There are several ways in which we could justify this statement, but also many ways in which we would be able to challenge it.
In terms of support, we can argue that this was the case because the cultures of America did not have any significant contact with the cultures of Africa or Oceania until the arrival of the Europeans. We can also support this by the fact that the Andean cultures and the Mesoamerican cultures had no contact with each other.
However, there are several factors that show that this was not the case, or that the claim might be exaggerated. For example, we know that many groups in Africa had extensive interactions with each other. For example, the expansion of the Bantu that took place over large regions in Africa. Another challenge could be the extensive contact that many Mesoamerican groups had with each other.
Protect and provide
The concept of government as provider comes next: government as provider of goods and services that individuals cannot provide individually for themselves. Government in this conception is the solution to collective action problems, the medium through which citizens create public goods that benefit everyone, but that are also subject to free-rider problems without some collective compulsion.
The basic economic infrastructure of human connectivity falls into this category: the means of physical travel, such as roads, bridges and ports of all kinds, and increasingly the means of virtual travel, such as broadband. All of this infrastructure can be, and typically initially is, provided by private entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to build a road, say, and charge users a toll, but the capital necessary is so great and the public benefit so obvious that ultimately the government takes over.
A more expansive concept of government as provider is the social welfare state: government can cushion the inability of citizens to provide for themselves, particularly in the vulnerable conditions of youth, old age, sickness, disability and unemployment due to economic forces beyond their control. As the welfare state has evolved, its critics have come to see it more as a protector from the harsh results of capitalism, or perhaps as a means of protecting the wealthy from the political rage of the dispossessed. At its best, however, it is providing an infrastructure of care to enable citizens to flourish socially and economically in the same way that an infrastructure of competition does. It provides a social security that enables citizens to create their own economic security.
The future of government builds on these foundations of protecting and providing. Government will continue to protect citizens from violence and from the worst vicissitudes of life. Government will continue to provide public goods, at a level necessary to ensure a globally competitive economy and a well-functioning society. But wherever possible, government should invest in citizen capabilities to enable them to provide for themselves in rapidly and continually changing circumstances.
Not surprisingly, this vision of government as investor comes from a deeply entrepreneurial culture. Technology reporter Gregory Ferenstein has polled leading silicon Valley entrepreneurs and concludedthat they “want the government to be an investor in citizens, rather than as a protector from capitalism. They want the government to heavily fund education, encourage more active citizenship, pursue binding international trade alliances and open borders to all immigrants.” In the words of Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt: “The combination of innovation, empowerment and creativity will be our solution.”
This celebration of human capacity is a welcome antidote to widespread pessimism about the capacity of government to meet current national and global economic, security, demographic and environmental challenges. Put into practice, however, government as investor will mean more than simply funding schools and opening borders. If government is to assume that in the main citizens can solve themselves more efficiently and effectively than government can provide for them, it will have to invest not only in the cultivation of citizen capabilities, but also in the provision of the resources and infrastructure to allow citizens to succeed at scale
The 1896 battle of Adwa took place in Ethiopia that was a battle between Ethiopia and Italy. Ethiopia crushed the Italians because it allowed Ethiopia to remain independent.
<h3>What do you mean by war?</h3>
War refers to the various conflicts between societies, states, or groups. War includes destruction, aggression, and violence.
The battle of Adwa took place in 1896 between Italy and Ethiopia. Italy wants to make Ethiopia a protectorate but Ethiopia crushed the Italians to remain independent.
Thus, this battle is between Ethiopia and Italy.
Learn more about War here:
brainly.com/question/11375126
#SPJ4
Answer:
Co-regulation
Explanation:
In psychology, co-regulation parenting is defined as a parent's support of their children emotional development through motivational or emotional scaffolding, helping their children regulate their behavior and emotions.
In co-regulation, each participant regulates the behavior of the other so it's a two-way process. This process is also continuous and dynamic as the response of one participant regulates the behavior of the other one.
In this example, <u>Angie is free to schedule her study and relaxation time </u>on her own. Angie's mom, on the other side, <u>checks on her school progress and talks to her about her problems and social life</u>.
We can see that <u>Angie's mom is supporting Angie's development by scaffolding, regulating her behavior (study and relaxation time) and emotions (talking about her problems)</u>. Angie's mom give her enough freedom to regulate herself but she also checks on her and is there for her to talk about her needs and problems. Thus, this is an example of co-regulation parenting.
