In regard to regulating companies, Roosevelt wanted them to serve the public in the best way possible.
Answer:
It was coined during a 1964 speech by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the University of Michigan and came to represent his domestic agenda. The main goal was the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice. ... The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
<span>Confucianism, Buddhism
would be my best guess... but out of the answers you listed they probably want Daoism and Confucianism.
Since Shinto is Japanese and Hinduism is Indian... those two are completely out of the question.
_____
</span>Daoism<span> isn't really a government influence... it embraces the philosophy of yin and yang. Good and Bad, without one the other cannot exist. Natural influences of a good and bad government doesn't really make a good governing philosophy. Confucianism was really based on good and virtuous, people live life in harmony and proprietary. He's missing the rules and laws of the Legalist system of government. Where it assumes all people are bad and without laws and rules everything would be in chaos. The First Emperor established the Legalist system in China, he was said to have buried alive hundreds of Confucian scholars and burned Confucian books... His reign was short lived, only 14 years. The next dynasty... the Han, governed with a combination of Legalist and Confucian type of government, lasted 426 years. This pretty much continued till the Tang dynasty when Buddhism a larger influence in society.</span><span />
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
