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
ELEN [110]
3 years ago
11

Which group was a result of the sit-in movement?

History
2 answers:
Gemiola [76]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

Explanation:

History is really something you just know

ella [17]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

c.  the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

You might be interested in
How might Athenian democracy be considered the root of modern democratic governments?
slavikrds [6]

I believe the answer is: Politicians and government are inspired by them today. We both believe in equality and elections.

The main difference between the democratic system that with held today and the athenian democracy lied within the representation.

In athenian democracy, people could directly vote for the type of legislation that they want to pass while in our current democracy, people could only vote for the representative.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What does opening line of the poem mean?.
Ganezh [65]

The opening line of the poem is the first line of the poem, which is called the first verse.

<h3>What is a verse?</h3>

Although verse refers to a single poetic line, the term is increasingly used to refer to the poetic form in general. Formally, a verse is a single metrical line in a poetry poem.

Verse, on the other hand, has come to denote any grouping of lines in poetic writing, with groupings generally referred to as stanzas. In contrast to prose, verse in the uncountable (mass noun) sense refers to poetry.

Therefore, the first line of the poem, known as the first verse, is the poem's opening line.

To learn more about the poem, refer to the link:

brainly.com/question/29547364

#SPJ1

3 0
1 year ago
When Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, “A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn,” what was he essentia
natita [175]

That if a child feels inferior, then they will not be able to learn.

This quote is from the Brown v. Board of Education ruling which reversed the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that "separate did not mean inequality".

Brown v. Board of Education stated that "separate is not equal". The case officially overturned the segregation of students in schools. The quote explains the reasoning behind the decision. Separating students into differing schools, even if they were to have similar access, causes damage. The self-esteem of the students being separated feel lesser and therefore will not be able to perform at the same level. This became the reasoning for desegregation of schools.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did native Americans and French have to deal with each other on equal terms
bulgar [2K]

The main reason is that they did not try to change the Natives. They also did not compete with the Natives for land. When the French first came to the Americas in the 1530s and 1540s to engage in seasonal fur trading, they immediately established strong trading ties with the local Natives they found there. The Natives already dealt extensively in furs.

The French quickly discovered they could go back to France in the winter months with ships laden with furs they had purchased from the Natives with European wares, such as metal cooking pots, weapons, horses, and other goods not accessible to the Natives at that time. The Natives also accompanied the French on hunting parties and showed them where the good fur animals could be found. The French made it a point to learn the Native languages and ways, and established good relations that were based on equality with all of the tribes in the area.

The French began to stay year-round in the early 1600s, establishing their first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608, one year after the English founded Jamestown in Virginia. They did not displace any Natives in the establishment of their settlement and continued to work closely with them in the fur trade. They respected Native territories, their ways, and treated them as the human beings they were. The Natives, in turn, treated the French as trusted friends. More intermarriages took place between French settlers and Native Americans than with any other European group.

This close alliance, which was based on mutual respect and good treatment from both sides, led the Natives to side with the French in their conflicts with the English settlers that came later in the 1600s and into the mid-1700s. Relations between the Natives and the English were not nearly as good.

The English treated the Natives as inferior, believed they stood in the way of their God-given right to the land in America and tried to subject the Natives to their laws as they established their colonies. The Spanish didn’t have any better relations with the Natives, as they tried to enslave them when they first came to America, and later established missions where they tried to force them to convert from their traditional religions to Catholicism. The Natives did not appreciate any of this.

The key to the friendly relations the French enjoyed with the Natives was all in the way they treated them when they first encountered them, and how they continued to treat them afterward. As long as the French maintained settlements in America, they enjoyed excellent relations with each other. For those who have early American French ancestry, or French settler ancestors who married Native Americans, the vast majority of those records can be found in the provincial archives of Quebec (some records there might lead back to France if the settler returned there with his Native American bride).

These records provide a fascinating look at relations between Natives and Europeans and show just how different things could have been if all the European people who came to America had been as progressive in their treatment of the Natives as the French were.

7 0
3 years ago
India both benefited from and was harmed by British colonial
Blizzard [7]

The positive impact of British colonialism in India is related to democracy in the country, which was instituted through British investment in Indian institutions such as courts and universities.

The negative impacts are related to the use of violence by British colonists throughout colonization.

<h3>British India</h3>

It corresponds to the period from 1757 to 1857, in which India was dominated by the British empire, which established colonialism in the country by establishing trading posts and exploiting resources.

Therefore, the positive and negative impacts of colonialism in India are related to the governance system of the British, which despite instituting democratic systems, also used violence and war to increase its control.

Find out more information about British India here:

brainly.com/question/873957

4 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following is not one of the causes of world war i?
    14·1 answer
  • In what area of Africa did the early Bantu originate?
    12·1 answer
  • Domestic system how are workers paid
    6·1 answer
  • All of the following are powers and functions assigned to the legislative branch EXCEPT:
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements about the Whig Party is FALSE?
    9·2 answers
  • Phrase that best describes the leader of a totalitarian government
    9·1 answer
  • Who could be a citizen of rome?
    12·1 answer
  • CONFUZZELED very much​
    14·1 answer
  • 1. How did Southern African Americans lose rights in the years after the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments?
    7·1 answer
  • What type of interest group supports causes important to most American citizens?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!