-
2011年8月4日星期四
What Changes did the greeks make during the Greek "Dark Ages" (1100 BCE- 850 BCE)?
-1100-850 is a time of great changes in Greece; we have the advent of the Dorians in Greece,the destruction of Mycenaean civilization,the development of Protogeometric pottery and the appearance of Greek settlements in Asia Minor and Greek islands.Do to the invasions lead by the 鈥淪ea People鈥?some Greeks started to become more nomadic, many things such as the creation of art were slowed down in order to put all recourses into military.
Help with History Class?
-Okay so I will be taking AP world This year and Any tips you can give me like for me to help remember dates,names,etc.?palm cards; write event at front and date at back of card
mindmap
draw up a timeline
do past test papers
write notes
if theres a test guidline, then study that.
good luck bro. (Y)Try not to remember everything, just the main dates and main points, also what matters is not just facts, but also understanding why events happened and what the consequences of them were. Depending on how seriously you want to take this read some historical fiction based on the events of the era you are studying, that will help you to understand the events.
Don't try to memorize names and dates like a list. It's possible, but you're more likely to forget.
Instead, try to really understand the concept you're studying. That's the only proven way to make something stick. Also, if you forget names and dates but can articulate the concept in depth, you will still score a few marks.
record things your teacher repeats. write down things like trees of significant families. try to remeber things like important wars by knowing how many years(ww1 1914-1918 4 years) and important things will come before and after and just pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!! good luck
Just study every day and you will remember it, you also have to find it interesting that helps.
mindmap
draw up a timeline
do past test papers
write notes
if theres a test guidline, then study that.
good luck bro. (Y)Try not to remember everything, just the main dates and main points, also what matters is not just facts, but also understanding why events happened and what the consequences of them were. Depending on how seriously you want to take this read some historical fiction based on the events of the era you are studying, that will help you to understand the events.
Don't try to memorize names and dates like a list. It's possible, but you're more likely to forget.
Instead, try to really understand the concept you're studying. That's the only proven way to make something stick. Also, if you forget names and dates but can articulate the concept in depth, you will still score a few marks.
record things your teacher repeats. write down things like trees of significant families. try to remeber things like important wars by knowing how many years(ww1 1914-1918 4 years) and important things will come before and after and just pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!! good luck
Just study every day and you will remember it, you also have to find it interesting that helps.
What do you think of East Germany?
-It's like The Room only more Pulp Fiction-ier!It's like The Room only more Pulp Fiction-ier!East Germany is dangerous and full of poor people with anger built up. West Germany is much better.
East Germany is just as bad as Austria.
I don't think anything about East Germany, as it ceased to exist over 20 years ago when East and West united following the end of communism.
There's no such thing, that was made only by Russian communists, it's like if they would separate Italy or France into 2 countries.
It's in the dust bin of history, where all Communist nations belong.
East Germany is just as bad as Austria.
I don't think anything about East Germany, as it ceased to exist over 20 years ago when East and West united following the end of communism.
There's no such thing, that was made only by Russian communists, it's like if they would separate Italy or France into 2 countries.
It's in the dust bin of history, where all Communist nations belong.
What was the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and what was their importance?
-Slaughterhouse Cases, cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873. In 1869 the Louisiana legislature granted a 25-year monopoly to a slaughterhouse concern in New Orleans for the stated purpose of protecting the people's health. Other slaughterhouse operators barred from their trade brought suit, principally on the ground that they had been deprived of their property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Samuel F. Miller rendering the majority decision, decided against the slaughterhouse operators, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment had to be considered in light of the original purpose of its framers, i.e., to guarantee the freedom of former black slaves. Although the amendment could not be construed to refer only to black slavery, its scope as originally planned did not include rights such as those in question. A distinction was drawn between United States and state citizenship, and it was held that the amendment did not intend to deprive the state of legal jurisdiction over the civil rights of its citizens. The restraint placed by the Louisiana legislators on the slaughterhouse operators was declared not to deprive them of their property without due process.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright 漏 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
gatita
Degree in History and Spanish, New Mexico State U. 1990The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) were the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the federal United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it, but not those privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright 漏 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
gatita
Degree in History and Spanish, New Mexico State U. 1990The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) were the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the federal United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it, but not those privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.
Is there any extant evidence of atheist thinking before Diagora and Protagoras (5th cen BCE)?
-As far as I know, darling, there were explicitly atheistic schools of thought (at least two, if I remember correctly) among the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, and there are some passages in the oldest of the vedas, the Rig Veda, that suggest some acceptance of atheistic thinking.
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.As far as I know, darling, there were explicitly atheistic schools of thought (at least two, if I remember correctly) among the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, and there are some passages in the oldest of the vedas, the Rig Veda, that suggest some acceptance of atheistic thinking.
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.Well it's pretty clear that the ancient Greeks at least had agnostics....though they found it politically expedient to not make too much noise about it, as it was quite unorthodox and dangerous at the time: placing men, not gods, at the center of value judgments. As proof of just how dangerous this attitude was perceived, Protagoras was branded with impiety by Athenians and banished while all his works were collected and burnt. It was later philosophers, including Diogenes, quoting him, who have ensured his name has survived down to us. If other, perhaps less luminary agnostic/atheist thinkers existed, it is possible their works were more thoroughly suppressed. This is of course supposition...but of the type which historians and archaeologists are forced to make often, in order that they might define the parameters of their study...isn't it??
One of the things Diogenes reports Protagoras as having said is:
"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."
Which is still, to my way of thinking, a pretty good argument for agnostic atheism....and I'm a dyed in the wool pagan!!...lol.
Hmm, interesting question.
Don't really know anything about the history of atheism to be honest but a quick read of wiki's "history of atheism" raises a few nice points.
One mentions that there were Pygmy tribes in Africa that were found to have zero religious beliefs and didn't understand the concept of theism and didn't display any superstition. Then there's the religions that emerged in the far east that don't subscribe to the notions of gods either.
Logically, since theism is a human concept it's fair to say that atheism is as old as theism. Just like "immorality" is as old as "morality".
Wish I could've given you some nice quotes but maybe you'll find some examples on Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o鈥?/a>
...
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.As far as I know, darling, there were explicitly atheistic schools of thought (at least two, if I remember correctly) among the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, and there are some passages in the oldest of the vedas, the Rig Veda, that suggest some acceptance of atheistic thinking.
(((angels)))
I think you're being a bit too rigorous with regard to the dates and the evidence, given the antiquity of the material you seem to be looking for - the Rig Veda goes back to at most recent, 1100 BCE, and, while it doesn't say "oh, yeah, and there are these people who don't believe in any gods, and that's ok," it does indicate that there was an acceptable level of skepticism or non-belief in the gods it praises.
Hinduism, in general, is pretty tolerant towards other belief systems, and I doubt that is a modern development. Its relationship to nastika (non-Vedic) traditions like Jainism and Buddhism seems to bear that out - Buddhism and Hinduism have different concepts, but they get along pretty well. The origins of Jainism and the origins of Hinduism go back very, very far beyond your dates, and they also seem to have coexisted pretty well, while remaining separate traditions.
Jainism's origins are usually identified as going back to the 9th century BCE - the 23rd Tirthankar (enlightened one/guide/role model), Parsvanatha, the earliest Jain leader known to have been a historical person, is believed to have been born in 877 BCE. However, he IS the 23rd, not the 1st...there were supposed to have been 22 others before him, meaning that by the 9th century BCE, Jainism was already very, very old.
The date confusion you're finding may come from the fact that, in the 6th century BCE, Mahavira (Vardhaman), who is considered the 24th or last Tirthankar to have attained enlightenment, established the current form of Jainism, giving the latest date. Mahavira (according to the Pali Canon, a contemporary or near-contemporary of the Buddha) is considered to have reformed his ancient religion, and his followers were the first to call themselves Jains, but Jainism certainly existed long before the 6th century BCE.
Jains believe that the universe is eternal - has always been, will always be - and that time is cyclical. They have no belief in a creator god and the figures some worship - the Tirthankara - became divine through enlightenment, and aren't a separate kind of being, as gods are often said to be in other belief systems. They don't have "traditional" gods in that sense - only souls that work through their karma and climb toward enlightenment. That's pretty atheistic, in my view.Well it's pretty clear that the ancient Greeks at least had agnostics....though they found it politically expedient to not make too much noise about it, as it was quite unorthodox and dangerous at the time: placing men, not gods, at the center of value judgments. As proof of just how dangerous this attitude was perceived, Protagoras was branded with impiety by Athenians and banished while all his works were collected and burnt. It was later philosophers, including Diogenes, quoting him, who have ensured his name has survived down to us. If other, perhaps less luminary agnostic/atheist thinkers existed, it is possible their works were more thoroughly suppressed. This is of course supposition...but of the type which historians and archaeologists are forced to make often, in order that they might define the parameters of their study...isn't it??
One of the things Diogenes reports Protagoras as having said is:
"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."
Which is still, to my way of thinking, a pretty good argument for agnostic atheism....and I'm a dyed in the wool pagan!!...lol.
Hmm, interesting question.
Don't really know anything about the history of atheism to be honest but a quick read of wiki's "history of atheism" raises a few nice points.
One mentions that there were Pygmy tribes in Africa that were found to have zero religious beliefs and didn't understand the concept of theism and didn't display any superstition. Then there's the religions that emerged in the far east that don't subscribe to the notions of gods either.
Logically, since theism is a human concept it's fair to say that atheism is as old as theism. Just like "immorality" is as old as "morality".
Wish I could've given you some nice quotes but maybe you'll find some examples on Wiki.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o鈥?/a>
...
George orwell, 1984. Please help!?
-What message through Winstons emotions was Orwell trying to convey? Please help me.... thx very much!Impotence in the face of the Party's overall dominance.Subservience to the will of Big Brother in the shape of O'Brien.
What happened to the farm industry after world war 1?
-For farmers, The Depression didn't start in 1929, it started much earlier. During World War One, American farmers fed all of Europe. Demand was high, and prices were great. Farmers increased production and land use to get as much profit as possible. They stopped rotating crops, and focused only on the crops most needed and profitable. When one crop is grown in one area year after year, that land gets drained of the nutrients the specific plant needs. Crop rotation was previously used to keep nutrients in the soil. No crop rotation, while profitable to the farmer during the war, abused the land.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.For farmers, The Depression didn't start in 1929, it started much earlier. During World War One, American farmers fed all of Europe. Demand was high, and prices were great. Farmers increased production and land use to get as much profit as possible. They stopped rotating crops, and focused only on the crops most needed and profitable. When one crop is grown in one area year after year, that land gets drained of the nutrients the specific plant needs. Crop rotation was previously used to keep nutrients in the soil. No crop rotation, while profitable to the farmer during the war, abused the land.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.What part of the world do you refer to?
In western countries from 1918 to now, farms gradually became much bigger and much more specialized. With new seeds and much better equipment, farms turned out much more with far less labour. Many, many rural towns died. People moved to towns and cities. The percentage of people framing dropped to record lows.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.For farmers, The Depression didn't start in 1929, it started much earlier. During World War One, American farmers fed all of Europe. Demand was high, and prices were great. Farmers increased production and land use to get as much profit as possible. They stopped rotating crops, and focused only on the crops most needed and profitable. When one crop is grown in one area year after year, that land gets drained of the nutrients the specific plant needs. Crop rotation was previously used to keep nutrients in the soil. No crop rotation, while profitable to the farmer during the war, abused the land.
In the aftermath of World War I, demand for American goods from abroad fell drastically. During the years 1918 and 1919, American Farmers saved Europe from starvation as countries tried to rebuild. There was an increase in demand of 15%. But from 1919-1921 demand fell, and agriculture income fell from 17.7 billion to a very low 10.5 billion. Farmers found themselves with a surplus of goods, bad soil, low prices, and no relief in taxes or mortgage payments. Bad soil and low demand caused land values to drop. To compensate for the extremely low prices, farmers planted more. Thus, a cycle was formed. High surplus leads to lower prices, which necessitates borrowing money, which creates debt, which leads to an increased production to pay the debt, which creates a surplus of goods. This cycle trapped the majority of American farmers throughout the twenties and thirties.What part of the world do you refer to?
In western countries from 1918 to now, farms gradually became much bigger and much more specialized. With new seeds and much better equipment, farms turned out much more with far less labour. Many, many rural towns died. People moved to towns and cities. The percentage of people framing dropped to record lows.
Name some countries which was never been colonised by the Western powers at all?
-Thailand, Ethiopia, Tibet, China (despite some Concessions and the Japanese invasion), Korea (it was a Japanese colony), Arabia (it was a Turkish colony), Iran, Afghanistan. Egypt was never formally a colonial possession but in practice was, and the same is true about Malaya, legally both were Protectorates. Iraq too was a Protectorate under a League of Nations Mandate, like
I am not counting brief invasions and some external pressures such as Thailand and Afghanistan experienced, which included foreign advisers to the governments. As the examples of China and Korea show it was not just the Western powers who colonised other countries, in fact, part of China's claim on Tibet results from a Tibetan kingdom which extended far into what is now modern China, similarly it was the Mongol conquest of China which now justifies China's claim on Inner Mongolia.Ethiopia and Liberia from Africa. Italy only had Ethiopia for only like ten years, and the Ethiopians were still fighting the Italians so that doesn't count as colonization
China, Japan, and some other country I can't remember from Asia are the ones that come to mind.
That is about it. Hope it helps.
Japan, Mongolia , perhaps Thailand.
that is hard to answer - countries have changed since colonization.
Thailand and Ethiopia.
I am not counting brief invasions and some external pressures such as Thailand and Afghanistan experienced, which included foreign advisers to the governments. As the examples of China and Korea show it was not just the Western powers who colonised other countries, in fact, part of China's claim on Tibet results from a Tibetan kingdom which extended far into what is now modern China, similarly it was the Mongol conquest of China which now justifies China's claim on Inner Mongolia.Ethiopia and Liberia from Africa. Italy only had Ethiopia for only like ten years, and the Ethiopians were still fighting the Italians so that doesn't count as colonization
China, Japan, and some other country I can't remember from Asia are the ones that come to mind.
That is about it. Hope it helps.
Japan, Mongolia , perhaps Thailand.
that is hard to answer - countries have changed since colonization.
Thailand and Ethiopia.
Name a successful negotiation in history that has helped to prevent war?
-Apologies if the question has been worded terribly, I just need a simple answer. You can go into detail if you feel like it.Negotiation between Khrushchev and Kennedy to prevent the Cuban missile crisis to explode, remember the Cubans agreed to the establishment of nuclear arms within their borders as a defense strategy since they lived in constant threat from an American invasion.
A really famous one was the Hittite-Egyptian peace treaty, probably the oldest peace treaty, it was a treaty that happened after the battle of Kadesh back in some time between 1300bc and 1200bc, it happened after a brutal battle but prevented total war to happen between the two supper powers of the day.
An infamous one is Hitler's negotiation with Czechoslovakia to surrender, which they did from fear of being invaded by the full force of Nazi Germany, this prevented war between them but eventually when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 Britain and France couldn't keep going with their appeasement policy which was meant to prevent war and declared war on Germany starting WW2.Gandhi and his people refused to fight the British as they threatened to take over India. This gained respect and put the British in a tough position of fighting a voluntarily defenseless army. Britain let India remain control of it's land.
A really famous one was the Hittite-Egyptian peace treaty, probably the oldest peace treaty, it was a treaty that happened after the battle of Kadesh back in some time between 1300bc and 1200bc, it happened after a brutal battle but prevented total war to happen between the two supper powers of the day.
An infamous one is Hitler's negotiation with Czechoslovakia to surrender, which they did from fear of being invaded by the full force of Nazi Germany, this prevented war between them but eventually when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 Britain and France couldn't keep going with their appeasement policy which was meant to prevent war and declared war on Germany starting WW2.Gandhi and his people refused to fight the British as they threatened to take over India. This gained respect and put the British in a tough position of fighting a voluntarily defenseless army. Britain let India remain control of it's land.
Who invented gold?n where?
-Gold is a natural, normal metal like silver, tin, copper, iron, and nickle.
It's on the dirt and on the ground.
It is said that ancient Egypt had so much gold that you used to simply find it on the ground, just laying around.Gold is a naturally occurring mineral, so no-one knows who invented it. Gold was independently discovered by many ancient civilisations, including the Egyptians, the Malinese, the Ancient Chinese and the Aztecs. It is believed to have been known to prehistoric people as well. if you ment who put the value on it and made it expensive at one stage it was no more important than any thing but as certain civilisation established religious practices that involved the sun and gold was seen to represent this God Soon after this was put in practice the heads of the community who worked closely with the guiding sun God order Soon become the dominant and enforced way for the community order that gold used for any old thing would lesson the immportance of the Sun religious order and his control over things That it was soon seen that all gold be a matter just for the heads of the country And from that point on it value took off
Actually, gold was invented(created) inside exploding super novae and dispersed into space
where it eventually became mixed with the other elements that make up the Earth. In fact all heavy
metals were created this way. So, you can say gold was invented by a star!
Gold is a naturally occurring mineral, not invented but discovered by Egyptians, the Malinese, the Ancient Chinese.
nobody "invented" gold. it is a natural metal.
TROLL! Gold was not invented its naturally found in the Earth
Lol, no one invented gold it was here on earth since the creation of our planet
I invented gold in the fires of Mt doom..
It's on the dirt and on the ground.
It is said that ancient Egypt had so much gold that you used to simply find it on the ground, just laying around.Gold is a naturally occurring mineral, so no-one knows who invented it. Gold was independently discovered by many ancient civilisations, including the Egyptians, the Malinese, the Ancient Chinese and the Aztecs. It is believed to have been known to prehistoric people as well. if you ment who put the value on it and made it expensive at one stage it was no more important than any thing but as certain civilisation established religious practices that involved the sun and gold was seen to represent this God Soon after this was put in practice the heads of the community who worked closely with the guiding sun God order Soon become the dominant and enforced way for the community order that gold used for any old thing would lesson the immportance of the Sun religious order and his control over things That it was soon seen that all gold be a matter just for the heads of the country And from that point on it value took off
Actually, gold was invented(created) inside exploding super novae and dispersed into space
where it eventually became mixed with the other elements that make up the Earth. In fact all heavy
metals were created this way. So, you can say gold was invented by a star!
Gold is a naturally occurring mineral, not invented but discovered by Egyptians, the Malinese, the Ancient Chinese.
nobody "invented" gold. it is a natural metal.
TROLL! Gold was not invented its naturally found in the Earth
Lol, no one invented gold it was here on earth since the creation of our planet
I invented gold in the fires of Mt doom..
How did Ancient romes government make it powerful, and was it popular with the people?
-were the governments democracy, monarchy and olargachy?Well Roman history changed from a monarchy to a republic to a senate and finally to a normal democratic government. The ways and means in which the governing body of Rome changed is a vast topic, and every ruler brought in something new. Also there were things such as the Triumvirates as well. So it isn't easy to explain it like that. Go to " www.roman-empire.net ". It'll give you a summarized version of the history of the Roman Government.
Roman Kingdom-no it was unpopular with the people and a monarchy
Roman Republic- yes very popular with the people and a democracy
Roman Empire- no very unpopular with the people and a oligarchy
Roman Kingdom-no it was unpopular with the people and a monarchy
Roman Republic- yes very popular with the people and a democracy
Roman Empire- no very unpopular with the people and a oligarchy
Which of the following events led to America's full involvement in World War II?
-A. D-Day invasion B. attack on Hawaii C. shocking realization that Nazis were murdering Jews D. German invasion of PolandB
It's B for school, otherwise it's what GIRL said..
It's B for school, otherwise it's what GIRL said..
To cut off food and supplies and bombar a city until its defenders give up_____? (complete)?
-a. Gettysburg address
b. foraging
c. George Meade
d. Ulysses S. Grant
f. siegeTo cut off food and supplies and bombard a City until its defenders give up is called a siege. So the answer to your question is f. siege.
That would be (f.) Siege
Yup,a siege.
maybe f
b. foraging
c. George Meade
d. Ulysses S. Grant
f. siegeTo cut off food and supplies and bombard a City until its defenders give up is called a siege. So the answer to your question is f. siege.
That would be (f.) Siege
Yup,a siege.
maybe f
Astrology is basically Indian or Greek?
-It is true that astrology developed in India during maurya. That was the time there was interaction between Indian and Greek civilization. So, I guess the basic idea of astrology came from Greek. is it true? But of course, "Astronomy" was developed in India (Aryabhtiya), I mean the origin. Please don't confuse astronomy with astrology.
The basic idea of astrology is "the celestial bodies control life in earth". this was an idea from Greek, if i m not mistaken.If you would check out the historical records of astrology, you would probably see that the people who invented astrology are the Babylonians.
This belief is supported by earliest pieces of astrological documents such as the Enuma Anu Enlil. This particular document is said to have been written during the early 1600 B.C., and holds an enumeration of astronomical omens and the respective interpretations for each.
Most people will suggest that the Greeks invented the zodiac signs. After all, the names certainly seem to suggest as much. This answer is actually an incorrect one. The Greeks had something to do with it, but the story is a convoluted one that requires some explanation. The story starts in鈥raq.
The first record we have of astrology is from Babylonia in the seventh century BC. Babylonia was contained within the borders of modern day Iraq. The Babylonians created an astrological clock based on the movement of the sun through the night sky. Archeologists believe the clock was used primarily to mark periods of the year for planting and what have you.
Did the Babylonians create the zodiac signs? Yes and no. It is difficult to tell because the records from that time are mostly long gone. Clearly they noted the 12 periods, but what they named them is open to conjecture. The first evidence we have of the actual signs being used comes neither from the Babylonians nor the Greeks. It comes from the Egyptians.
The Greeks stole many ideas from other cultures but still get all the credit today!There are many separate cultures spanning the entire globe who also came up with this theory all on their own. Polynesians, ancient tribes of northern europe before contact with Rome (Wiccan), the vikings. The Ancient Chinese peoples, and others in the Orient far removed from India (Mongols). Egypt and the Sumerians of the ancient Fertile Crescent could have been the first known to do this by archaeological artifacts.
indian. but guy above is right babylonia,. greek is known for plato aristotle who are not astrologists but political philosohesr. notice the difference? astrology? politics? totally different interests, one worldly the other heavenly or other worldly..
Astrology, in one form or another, is common to a many cultures who have had no interaction with each other.
Agree w Julie. Babylonian.
the greeks!
The basic idea of astrology is "the celestial bodies control life in earth". this was an idea from Greek, if i m not mistaken.If you would check out the historical records of astrology, you would probably see that the people who invented astrology are the Babylonians.
This belief is supported by earliest pieces of astrological documents such as the Enuma Anu Enlil. This particular document is said to have been written during the early 1600 B.C., and holds an enumeration of astronomical omens and the respective interpretations for each.
Most people will suggest that the Greeks invented the zodiac signs. After all, the names certainly seem to suggest as much. This answer is actually an incorrect one. The Greeks had something to do with it, but the story is a convoluted one that requires some explanation. The story starts in鈥raq.
The first record we have of astrology is from Babylonia in the seventh century BC. Babylonia was contained within the borders of modern day Iraq. The Babylonians created an astrological clock based on the movement of the sun through the night sky. Archeologists believe the clock was used primarily to mark periods of the year for planting and what have you.
Did the Babylonians create the zodiac signs? Yes and no. It is difficult to tell because the records from that time are mostly long gone. Clearly they noted the 12 periods, but what they named them is open to conjecture. The first evidence we have of the actual signs being used comes neither from the Babylonians nor the Greeks. It comes from the Egyptians.
The Greeks stole many ideas from other cultures but still get all the credit today!There are many separate cultures spanning the entire globe who also came up with this theory all on their own. Polynesians, ancient tribes of northern europe before contact with Rome (Wiccan), the vikings. The Ancient Chinese peoples, and others in the Orient far removed from India (Mongols). Egypt and the Sumerians of the ancient Fertile Crescent could have been the first known to do this by archaeological artifacts.
indian. but guy above is right babylonia,. greek is known for plato aristotle who are not astrologists but political philosohesr. notice the difference? astrology? politics? totally different interests, one worldly the other heavenly or other worldly..
Astrology, in one form or another, is common to a many cultures who have had no interaction with each other.
Agree w Julie. Babylonian.
the greeks!
Did Hitler consider the Iranians/Persians to be Aryans?
-Actually you're not far off the mark at all. Though he saw the Aryans as Blond Hair, Fair skin and Blue eyed he searched places for traces of them/their point of origin by sending the leading Archeologists of the time to far flung places across the world. I forget exactly where but i know i saw something about Tibet for sure (not that he was relating them to modern Tibetans but more because he saw them as originating from their before Tibetans). I saw a documentary a fair few years ago on just this sort of thing, i can remember that Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were the main instigators in the search.The Third Reich certainly DID.
Persians had no civil disabilities and were allowed to marry Germans.
Any German wanting to marry an Iranian has, and had, to be rather unwise, but that's a separate issue.
no.
the perfect aryan according to hitler is blonde hair blue eyes white skin or of pure blood from those that are. he himself wasnt' actually considered aryan pure blood though no one would say that to him.
Easy answer to your question and it is No. Hitler would not have thought they were Aryans, too dark and not German for a start.
Persians had no civil disabilities and were allowed to marry Germans.
Any German wanting to marry an Iranian has, and had, to be rather unwise, but that's a separate issue.
no.
the perfect aryan according to hitler is blonde hair blue eyes white skin or of pure blood from those that are. he himself wasnt' actually considered aryan pure blood though no one would say that to him.
Easy answer to your question and it is No. Hitler would not have thought they were Aryans, too dark and not German for a start.
What were the causes of hyper inflation?
-history....answer pls help guys.........WHERE?!?!
judging by other question, do you mean Germany in the 1920's?
basically, France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr Valley, Germany's industrial heartland to extract their own raw materials because Germany had fallen behind on the reparations of the Treaty of Versailles (6.6 Billion Marks)
SO the Germany government told the workers to offer 'passive resistance' meaning, they don't fight, just not work.
These guys needed paying, and Germany was getting as much money as it could to pay the reparations. So they started to print off money, which - as you know, reduces the value of their currency (The Mark at this time). They printed off millions to pay workers, and inflation took place, because so much money was flooded into the market.
By November 1923 (I think) 1 US $ = like 100 Billion German Marks - joke eh?
Specify the country....
In economics, hyperinflation is inflation that is very high or "out of control". While the real values of the specific economic items generally stay the same in terms of relatively stable foreign currencies, in hyperinflationary conditions the general price level within a specific economy increases rapidly as the functional or internal currency, as opposed to a foreign currency, loses its real value very quickly, normally at an accelerating rate. Definitions used vary from one provided by the International Accounting Standards Board, which describes it as "a cumulative inflation rate over three years approaching 100% (26% per annum compounded for three years in a row)", to Cagan's (1956) "inflation exceeding 50% a month." As a rule of thumb, normal monthly and annual low inflation and deflation are reported per month, while under hyperinflation the general price level could rise by 5 or 10% or even much more every day.
A vicious circle is created in which more and more inflation is created with each iteration of the ever increasing money printing cycle.
Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), currency meltdowns, political or social upheavals, or aggressive bidding on currency exchanges.
Printing too much money. I know of no other way hyper inflation can happen. Look at Germany about 1925. Look at Zimbabwe today. Money backed by gold or better yet just gold can never have this problem unless some vast amount of gold is found that can be mined very cheaply.
Today gold miners are quite happy to dig up and process a ton of rock if they can get 0.1 OZ of gold.
printing too much paper money with nothing to back it up.
judging by other question, do you mean Germany in the 1920's?
basically, France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr Valley, Germany's industrial heartland to extract their own raw materials because Germany had fallen behind on the reparations of the Treaty of Versailles (6.6 Billion Marks)
SO the Germany government told the workers to offer 'passive resistance' meaning, they don't fight, just not work.
These guys needed paying, and Germany was getting as much money as it could to pay the reparations. So they started to print off money, which - as you know, reduces the value of their currency (The Mark at this time). They printed off millions to pay workers, and inflation took place, because so much money was flooded into the market.
By November 1923 (I think) 1 US $ = like 100 Billion German Marks - joke eh?
Specify the country....
In economics, hyperinflation is inflation that is very high or "out of control". While the real values of the specific economic items generally stay the same in terms of relatively stable foreign currencies, in hyperinflationary conditions the general price level within a specific economy increases rapidly as the functional or internal currency, as opposed to a foreign currency, loses its real value very quickly, normally at an accelerating rate. Definitions used vary from one provided by the International Accounting Standards Board, which describes it as "a cumulative inflation rate over three years approaching 100% (26% per annum compounded for three years in a row)", to Cagan's (1956) "inflation exceeding 50% a month." As a rule of thumb, normal monthly and annual low inflation and deflation are reported per month, while under hyperinflation the general price level could rise by 5 or 10% or even much more every day.
A vicious circle is created in which more and more inflation is created with each iteration of the ever increasing money printing cycle.
Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), currency meltdowns, political or social upheavals, or aggressive bidding on currency exchanges.
Printing too much money. I know of no other way hyper inflation can happen. Look at Germany about 1925. Look at Zimbabwe today. Money backed by gold or better yet just gold can never have this problem unless some vast amount of gold is found that can be mined very cheaply.
Today gold miners are quite happy to dig up and process a ton of rock if they can get 0.1 OZ of gold.
printing too much paper money with nothing to back it up.
In order for the constitution to be accepted, what has to happen?
-A. the public needed to ratify it.
B. nine state conventions needed to ratify it.
C. three-fifths of all state legislators needed to ratify it.
D. nine state legislatures needed to ratify it.
E. a unanimous vote among the states need to occur
B. nine state conventions needed to ratify it.
C. three-fifths of all state legislators needed to ratify it.
D. nine state legislatures needed to ratify it.
E. a unanimous vote among the states need to occur
How was the Rwanda massacre classified as a genocide?
-I know that the Rwanda Genocide was when the Tutsi people killed 800000 Hutu in 1994 but how is it classified as a genocide instead of a massacre or civil war?Civil War, massacre, and genocide. It was all 3 of those things. But Genocide is a word that gives you more horrific detail on what happened in Rwanda in 1994. And for ease of understanding, there was a Rwanda Civil War from 1990 to 1993, that ended in peace talks and and the United Nations Peacekeepers coming in. The Rwanda Genocide was 1994. I guess they could have called it the 2nd Rwanda Civil War...
Civil War - Is too sides fighting within a nation. However, as is the case with most wars, there are usually armies involved. As in our army fights your army. right from when the term was first used when Julius Cesar's Legions fought with Pompeius Magnus Legions. Sure, there can be civilian death, but how many army casualties do you here about in the Rwanda Genocide?
Massacre - Is indiscriminate killing. Sure this was indiscriminate killing of Hutu. but genocide gives you a little more information about what happened.
In genocide, a whole ethnicity is targeted - the hope is to drive them into extinction - in other words, genocide is a massacre.
Genocide is acting to kill an entire nation or ethnic group.
It wasn't. It should have, but it wasn't.
Civil War - Is too sides fighting within a nation. However, as is the case with most wars, there are usually armies involved. As in our army fights your army. right from when the term was first used when Julius Cesar's Legions fought with Pompeius Magnus Legions. Sure, there can be civilian death, but how many army casualties do you here about in the Rwanda Genocide?
Massacre - Is indiscriminate killing. Sure this was indiscriminate killing of Hutu. but genocide gives you a little more information about what happened.
In genocide, a whole ethnicity is targeted - the hope is to drive them into extinction - in other words, genocide is a massacre.
Genocide is acting to kill an entire nation or ethnic group.
It wasn't. It should have, but it wasn't.
Name at least three features typical of a king in one of the First Civilizations.?
-Physically powerful, psychologically confident, mentally sharp. Remember that in ancient times, the ability to overcome your foes was the greatest asset of leadership, as this would provide your people with the greatest security, food supply, and other resources.They almost always descended from (or were themselves) warriors who got power, fortune and respect via conquest.
What was or is the greatest civilization that has ever existed in history?
-This question has been asked many times, but the answers seemed mostly biased, or based on military might or expansion. Culture, scientific advances, and engineering should all be taken into account.Any answer will be biased. All one can do is look at some of the achievements of different civilizations.
Agriculture, writing, the wheel, and astrology were all invented by the Sumerians.
The Greeks gave us Western Civilization. The invented democracy and developed theater. They had great architecture and sculpture. They had great scientists and philosphers.
The Romans were great engineers and architects. They developed a highly sophisticated calendar. Their language has had a lasting influence.
The Chinese came up with several important inventions long before they were used in other parts of the world.
Modern U.S. civilization has developed the greatest military and economic entity ever. Technology is advancing at record rates.
The largest empire ever was the British Empire. The British gave the world the Industrial Revolution. Much of the world's greatest literature and its most popular music is British.
Islam made important contributions to medicine, finance, banking, and science in the Middle Ages. Also architecture.If you don't consider america then I would have to say Greece. The empire was well known for it's culture specializing in so many arts that even last today. Science as far as space they had theories that even started things today. I say greece because they did so much that lasted even until today. Kids at school even go over greek mythology. They did so much that made more of an impact in our lives today. You can tell this because they get spoke of more than any other empire or civilization except for the might of rome (only with alexander the great and his military might)...other than that rome really isn't mentioned. Rome's culture was strong and very prideful of being from rome but not more scientific than greece.
The greatest civilization at any point in history is far and away the vast British Empire, prior to WWI.
The sun literally never set on the British empire, who controlled 1/5 of the world's total land before WWI. No empire dominated every aspect of the world like Britain did. Not only did they dominate provinces near and far, they practically invented the free market economy, and their economic system exploited the globe, pouring money into their ever growing industries, navy, and technology. Britain was far ahead of the rest of the world in technology, industrializing in the 1700's while other nations lagged behind with revolutions. Utilizing their rich supplies of wool, iron, and coal/coke, the English invented anything from the spinning jenny to the bessemer converter, and truly defined an Industrial Age economy.
But their dominance is not only seen in their economic and technological prowess. The British empire had a huge political effect, bringing third world countries into the modern era, despite the negative effects of colonialism. Their political structure (parliamentary) is also used in many major nations today such as India and Canada.
Finally, in terms of society, Britain was a world leader; the influence of British literature, clothing, design, and lifestyle was undeniable throughout the world, especially in the U.S.
Considering how much Britain dominated every category they should be considered outstanding. But consider how much competition they had from the U.S., France, rapidly growing Germany, and the late Russian Empire. Other empires such as the Mongol, Greeks, or Romans existed at a time of lawlessness, and could easily dominate neighboring states with their unified armies and governments.
Britain stands as the greatest empire in history, and let us pray modern day China doesn't change that...
Rome. Everything we use today from technology to public services all traces back to the organization used in Rome. They made incredible tools and architecture and there order was unbelievable. There fall was the corruption. Since there was so much politicians and governors that got greedy with power lust. Plumbing, government organization, city planning, entertainment.... just a few that the Romans left that we still use today.
Expansion though was clearly the Mongol Empire, the rate they took over and how much, they were almost able to take over Europe if the wanted to. They probably could of in fact.
Well my biased answer is America. Unbiased maybe China or Rome
National Socialist Germany
Rome nigs
Agriculture, writing, the wheel, and astrology were all invented by the Sumerians.
The Greeks gave us Western Civilization. The invented democracy and developed theater. They had great architecture and sculpture. They had great scientists and philosphers.
The Romans were great engineers and architects. They developed a highly sophisticated calendar. Their language has had a lasting influence.
The Chinese came up with several important inventions long before they were used in other parts of the world.
Modern U.S. civilization has developed the greatest military and economic entity ever. Technology is advancing at record rates.
The largest empire ever was the British Empire. The British gave the world the Industrial Revolution. Much of the world's greatest literature and its most popular music is British.
Islam made important contributions to medicine, finance, banking, and science in the Middle Ages. Also architecture.If you don't consider america then I would have to say Greece. The empire was well known for it's culture specializing in so many arts that even last today. Science as far as space they had theories that even started things today. I say greece because they did so much that lasted even until today. Kids at school even go over greek mythology. They did so much that made more of an impact in our lives today. You can tell this because they get spoke of more than any other empire or civilization except for the might of rome (only with alexander the great and his military might)...other than that rome really isn't mentioned. Rome's culture was strong and very prideful of being from rome but not more scientific than greece.
The greatest civilization at any point in history is far and away the vast British Empire, prior to WWI.
The sun literally never set on the British empire, who controlled 1/5 of the world's total land before WWI. No empire dominated every aspect of the world like Britain did. Not only did they dominate provinces near and far, they practically invented the free market economy, and their economic system exploited the globe, pouring money into their ever growing industries, navy, and technology. Britain was far ahead of the rest of the world in technology, industrializing in the 1700's while other nations lagged behind with revolutions. Utilizing their rich supplies of wool, iron, and coal/coke, the English invented anything from the spinning jenny to the bessemer converter, and truly defined an Industrial Age economy.
But their dominance is not only seen in their economic and technological prowess. The British empire had a huge political effect, bringing third world countries into the modern era, despite the negative effects of colonialism. Their political structure (parliamentary) is also used in many major nations today such as India and Canada.
Finally, in terms of society, Britain was a world leader; the influence of British literature, clothing, design, and lifestyle was undeniable throughout the world, especially in the U.S.
Considering how much Britain dominated every category they should be considered outstanding. But consider how much competition they had from the U.S., France, rapidly growing Germany, and the late Russian Empire. Other empires such as the Mongol, Greeks, or Romans existed at a time of lawlessness, and could easily dominate neighboring states with their unified armies and governments.
Britain stands as the greatest empire in history, and let us pray modern day China doesn't change that...
Rome. Everything we use today from technology to public services all traces back to the organization used in Rome. They made incredible tools and architecture and there order was unbelievable. There fall was the corruption. Since there was so much politicians and governors that got greedy with power lust. Plumbing, government organization, city planning, entertainment.... just a few that the Romans left that we still use today.
Expansion though was clearly the Mongol Empire, the rate they took over and how much, they were almost able to take over Europe if the wanted to. They probably could of in fact.
Well my biased answer is America. Unbiased maybe China or Rome
National Socialist Germany
Rome nigs
Did i cite right? Reference Citation?
-Perron, B., Gotham, H., & Cho D. (2008). Victimization among African American adolescents in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40, 67-76
I know the journal is italicized! Is there anything wrong with the citation?
I know the journal is italicized! Is there anything wrong with the citation?
Why did the Spanish have children with the Aztecs?
-Why did the spanish had relations with the indigenous peopleCause they had power over them. And hey if they saw something they liked, they could have it. That's how power works!For the most part, they didn't. Most aboriginal peoples of the Americas were killed by plague, and the majority of the remainder were in wars. For the few that did, it was either love, lust, or a strategy to multiply and create a majority in their new territories quickly.
On a final note, the Aztecs and the other peoples were not conquered because they were primitive or unintelligent. Read your history, even the spanish were amazed at the wonder of tenochtitlan, and they said it outdid any city in europe.
Unlike the Protestant British, the Catholic Spanish were not racists. The Spanish freely intermarried with the Native Americans in their territories. Several descendants of Montezuma even became governors of New Mexico.
With love in Christ.
Cuz the aztecs were bad **** mofos ;)
actually those men from spain were at sea for quite awhile, once you see women indigenous or not they wanted it. and if it werent for that i wouldnt be here. go mexicans! :)
Because they were far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far away from El Pope'.
The only thing that mattered to the Conquistidors was the plunder to glorify Spain's church.
Spain, South America - The Mediterranean, Tropical jungles, Palm trees, Sunny places.
Hot blood
... because they were there. People do that. They get the urge, and then they have sex. It is just part of the biological program.
Because they had the power to rape and have sex with the primitive communities they destroyed.
They found their asses too juicy to pass on.
On a final note, the Aztecs and the other peoples were not conquered because they were primitive or unintelligent. Read your history, even the spanish were amazed at the wonder of tenochtitlan, and they said it outdid any city in europe.
Unlike the Protestant British, the Catholic Spanish were not racists. The Spanish freely intermarried with the Native Americans in their territories. Several descendants of Montezuma even became governors of New Mexico.
With love in Christ.
Cuz the aztecs were bad **** mofos ;)
actually those men from spain were at sea for quite awhile, once you see women indigenous or not they wanted it. and if it werent for that i wouldnt be here. go mexicans! :)
Because they were far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far away from El Pope'.
The only thing that mattered to the Conquistidors was the plunder to glorify Spain's church.
Spain, South America - The Mediterranean, Tropical jungles, Palm trees, Sunny places.
Hot blood
... because they were there. People do that. They get the urge, and then they have sex. It is just part of the biological program.
Because they had the power to rape and have sex with the primitive communities they destroyed.
They found their asses too juicy to pass on.
Catholic Parish History, Is anybody working or was working on one of these types of projects?
-I am working on a Catholic Parish History Project, and I am looking to find out if anybody is working on one too! I would like to share and gather tips and pointers on how to research.
How did the petrov affair affect Australia ?
-The defections came shortly before the 1954 federal election. Evatt accused Menzies of having arranged the defections to coincide with the election, for the benefit of the ruling Liberal Party.
According to some, partly as a result of the Petrov Affair, Menzies was successful at the election, which Labor had been widely expected to win. The Royal Commission continued for the rest of 1954 and uncovered some evidence of espionage for the Soviet Union by some members and supporters of the Communist Party of Australia during and immediately after World War II, but no-one was ever charged with an offence as a result of the commission's work and no major spy ring was uncovered. (No one was charged for various reasons: one was given immunity from prosecution, others who had handled documents had not technically broken the law, one was in Prague and remained there, and evidence against others could not be presented because it would reveal that Western intelligence services had broken Soviet codes.)
Evatt's loss of the election and his belief that Menzies had conspired with ASIO to contrive Petrov's defection led to criticism within the Labor Party of his decision to appear before the Royal Commission. He compounded this by writing to the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, asking if allegations of Soviet espionage in Australia were true. When Molotov replied, denying the allegations, Evatt read the letter out in Parliament, inviting amazement and ridicule from his opponents.
Evatt's actions aroused the anger of the right wing of the Labor Party, influenced by the Catholic anti-Communism of B.A. Santamaria and his clandestine "Movement". Evatt came to believe that the Movement was also part of the conspiracy against him, and publicly denounced Santamaria and his supporters in October 1954, leading to a major split in the Labor Party, which kept it out of power until 1972.
According to some, partly as a result of the Petrov Affair, Menzies was successful at the election, which Labor had been widely expected to win. The Royal Commission continued for the rest of 1954 and uncovered some evidence of espionage for the Soviet Union by some members and supporters of the Communist Party of Australia during and immediately after World War II, but no-one was ever charged with an offence as a result of the commission's work and no major spy ring was uncovered. (No one was charged for various reasons: one was given immunity from prosecution, others who had handled documents had not technically broken the law, one was in Prague and remained there, and evidence against others could not be presented because it would reveal that Western intelligence services had broken Soviet codes.)
Evatt's loss of the election and his belief that Menzies had conspired with ASIO to contrive Petrov's defection led to criticism within the Labor Party of his decision to appear before the Royal Commission. He compounded this by writing to the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, asking if allegations of Soviet espionage in Australia were true. When Molotov replied, denying the allegations, Evatt read the letter out in Parliament, inviting amazement and ridicule from his opponents.
Evatt's actions aroused the anger of the right wing of the Labor Party, influenced by the Catholic anti-Communism of B.A. Santamaria and his clandestine "Movement". Evatt came to believe that the Movement was also part of the conspiracy against him, and publicly denounced Santamaria and his supporters in October 1954, leading to a major split in the Labor Party, which kept it out of power until 1972.
Which countries have changed their flags?
-some are myanmar and lesotho...........are there any more??The USA changed its flag a number of times.
Canada did it once. Russia did it at least twice, first czarist, then communist then the current flag.
The USA as it gained states, Germany in the mid 1930's, Germany again after WW2, Russia in 1991, Most of Eastern Europe in 1989 or 1991
Russia
Germany
Japan
China
India
Canada
South Africa
Georgia
The USA did in 1959, when Hawaii became our 50th state. Or was it Alaska? One of the two.
Canada did it once. Russia did it at least twice, first czarist, then communist then the current flag.
The USA as it gained states, Germany in the mid 1930's, Germany again after WW2, Russia in 1991, Most of Eastern Europe in 1989 or 1991
Russia
Germany
Japan
China
India
Canada
South Africa
Georgia
The USA did in 1959, when Hawaii became our 50th state. Or was it Alaska? One of the two.
The War Powers Act, passed by Congress over President Nixon’s veto, required the president to __________.?
-A. seek congressional approval before launching nuclear weapons
B. immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam
C. seek U.N. mediation of all conflicts before resorting to military force
D. withdraw troops he had sent abroad unless Congress approved that commitment within 60 daysD. withdraw troops he had sent abroad unless Congress approved that commitment within 60 days.
Interesting debate as to whether it is constitutional or not. The president is Commander-in-Chief of US forces.
B. immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam
C. seek U.N. mediation of all conflicts before resorting to military force
D. withdraw troops he had sent abroad unless Congress approved that commitment within 60 daysD. withdraw troops he had sent abroad unless Congress approved that commitment within 60 days.
Interesting debate as to whether it is constitutional or not. The president is Commander-in-Chief of US forces.
Name some countries which was never been colonised by the Western powers at all?
-Thailand, Ethiopia, Tibet, China (despite some Concessions and the Japanese invasion), Korea (it was a Japanese colony), Arabia (it was a Turkish colony), Iran, Afghanistan. Egypt was never formally a colonial possession but in practice was, and the same is true about Malaya, legally both were Protectorates. Iraq too was a Protectorate under a League of Nations Mandate, like
I am not counting brief invasions and some external pressures such as Thailand and Afghanistan experienced, which included foreign advisers to the governments. As the examples of China and Korea show it was not just the Western powers who colonised other countries, in fact, part of China's claim on Tibet results from a Tibetan kingdom which extended far into what is now modern China, similarly it was the Mongol conquest of China which now justifies China's claim on Inner Mongolia.Ethiopia and Liberia from Africa. Italy only had Ethiopia for only like ten years, and the Ethiopians were still fighting the Italians so that doesn't count as colonization
China, Japan, and some other country I can't remember from Asia are the ones that come to mind.
That is about it. Hope it helps.
Japan, Mongolia , perhaps Thailand.
that is hard to answer - countries have changed since colonization.
Thailand and Ethiopia.
I am not counting brief invasions and some external pressures such as Thailand and Afghanistan experienced, which included foreign advisers to the governments. As the examples of China and Korea show it was not just the Western powers who colonised other countries, in fact, part of China's claim on Tibet results from a Tibetan kingdom which extended far into what is now modern China, similarly it was the Mongol conquest of China which now justifies China's claim on Inner Mongolia.Ethiopia and Liberia from Africa. Italy only had Ethiopia for only like ten years, and the Ethiopians were still fighting the Italians so that doesn't count as colonization
China, Japan, and some other country I can't remember from Asia are the ones that come to mind.
That is about it. Hope it helps.
Japan, Mongolia , perhaps Thailand.
that is hard to answer - countries have changed since colonization.
Thailand and Ethiopia.
Which of these was a belief of most Native Americans?
-which of these was a belief of most Native Americans?
a. all things are connected
b. if men were angels, no government would be necessary
c. a penny saved is a penny earned
d. all are entitled to life, liberty, and property
who would be most likely to yell, "No taxation without representation"?
a. a member of Parliament responding to the Proclamation Line of 1763
b. a colonist responding to the Townshend Acts
c. a British citizen living in London responding to the Stamp Act
d. a colonist reacting to the Boston MassacreThe simple textbook answers are A to the first one and B to the second one. However, the first question seems to ignore the fact that there are many hundreds of different Native American cultures that have different beliefs, although that is a commonly held belief. Also, I hate the use of the word "was." Natives are still here, and I hate that the mainstream American educational system ignores Native existence past the colonial period. As for the second question, the Townshend Acts were what raised the taxes and started the "no taxation without representation" movement towards revolution, but answer D could also be said to be true because it further spurred support for the separation movement.
Your second question doesn't relate to Native Americans. They didn't get "representation" (or the right to vote) until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
the first one is A (they believed everything had a spirit)
the second is B (just another part of the British taxation on there colonies)
Native Americans are many distinct cultures, not one culture I think A and D
a. all things are connected
b. if men were angels, no government would be necessary
c. a penny saved is a penny earned
d. all are entitled to life, liberty, and property
who would be most likely to yell, "No taxation without representation"?
a. a member of Parliament responding to the Proclamation Line of 1763
b. a colonist responding to the Townshend Acts
c. a British citizen living in London responding to the Stamp Act
d. a colonist reacting to the Boston MassacreThe simple textbook answers are A to the first one and B to the second one. However, the first question seems to ignore the fact that there are many hundreds of different Native American cultures that have different beliefs, although that is a commonly held belief. Also, I hate the use of the word "was." Natives are still here, and I hate that the mainstream American educational system ignores Native existence past the colonial period. As for the second question, the Townshend Acts were what raised the taxes and started the "no taxation without representation" movement towards revolution, but answer D could also be said to be true because it further spurred support for the separation movement.
Your second question doesn't relate to Native Americans. They didn't get "representation" (or the right to vote) until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
the first one is A (they believed everything had a spirit)
the second is B (just another part of the British taxation on there colonies)
Native Americans are many distinct cultures, not one culture I think A and D
History question. please help.?
-Name at least three elements that a civilization must have in order to produce monumental works on the scale of Mesopotamian ziggurats or Egyptian pyramids.
Why did Richard Nixon start the EPA?
-I'm trying to determine if there was a specific event responsible for Nixon's consideration in creating the EPA or if it was the culmination of something else.
US history help...................?
-Could someone help me with this essay prompt, please?
During the 1600-1750, what were some differences between the English colonies, the Middle colonies, and the Southern colonies?New England colonies were founded mostly by religious fanatics. The soil was poor and the climate harsh, so farms were small. Lumber and shipbuilding were a big deal.
The middle colonies were more open to religious toleration. They were more likely to be proprietary colonies.
The Southern colonies had large tobacco plantations worked by slave labor.
Yes.
During the 1600-1750, what were some differences between the English colonies, the Middle colonies, and the Southern colonies?New England colonies were founded mostly by religious fanatics. The soil was poor and the climate harsh, so farms were small. Lumber and shipbuilding were a big deal.
The middle colonies were more open to religious toleration. They were more likely to be proprietary colonies.
The Southern colonies had large tobacco plantations worked by slave labor.
Yes.
How were gay people treated in the Middle East in the twentieth century ?
-"Gay" people didn't technically exist in the 19th century Middle East. I mean that no one was publicly open, that is unless they were suicidal. Many Middle Eastern cultures practiced stoning on homosexuals. But that is a common treatment that was universal at the time. Even in England in the 1800s homosexuality was illegal and people were prosecuted in cruel ways."Gay" people didn't technically exist in the 19th century Middle East. I mean that no one was publicly open, that is unless they were suicidal. Many Middle Eastern cultures practiced stoning on homosexuals. But that is a common treatment that was universal at the time. Even in England in the 1800s homosexuality was illegal and people were prosecuted in cruel ways.
Why did the USSR decide to also build an atomic bomb in 1949?
-So it's this event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project
So why did they do it? was it a statement of power or was it the result of something..
On the wikipedia page it said that Georgii Flerov's letter to Stalin led him to start a plan to build his own country's nuclear weapons.. but could i have further details of the significance of this? and does this correlate to the nuclear arms race?
Thanks so much!When the Americans built M.I.K.E (the fist thermonuclear explosive device), the Russians needed a form of retaliation which came also in the form of a nuclear device. Their 50 megaton 'Tsar' bomb far outdone the Americans with their 15 kiloton device. This sparked the cold war, the race for space and all subsequent events. Most people don't realise how close we came to omnicide 40 years ago.
The world at that time was divided between the capitalist countries and those ruled by Communism (and the so called Third World). The Communists saw themselves as being in an epic, ideological struggle with the West, but the capitalists (US and allies) had bombs and the Communists did not.
The wikipedia page for the Cold War may be more helpful.
The USA had the bomb. Their greatest enemy the USSR didn't. So to give the country security against an attack from the USA they had to get it, (even though the technology was stolen from the USA). The outcome is protection designated MAD (mutually assured destruction), and that's why there have been no more wars in Europe.
Stalin blockaded Berlin in 1948. The city was within the Soviet zone, although subject to the control of all four major powers. The Soviets cut off all rail and road routes to West Berlin. Convinced that he could starve and freeze West Berlin into submission, no trucks or trains were allowed entry into the city. However, this decision backfired when Truman embarked on a highly visible move that would humiliate the Soviets internationally鈥攕upplying the beleaguered city by air. Military confrontation threatened while Truman, with British help, flew supplies over East Germany into West Berlin during the 1948鈥?9 blockade. This costly aerial supplying of West Berlin became known as the Berlin Airlift.
Truman joined eleven other nations in 1949 to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the United States' first "entangling" European alliance in 170 years. Stalin replied to these moves by integrating the economies of Eastern Europe in his version of the Marshall Plan, exploding the first Soviet atomic device in 1949, signing an alliance with Communist China in February 1950, and forming the Warsaw Pact, Eastern Europe's counterpart to NATO.
Soviets had always consider USA their enemy. Even during WW2 Marx doctrine of the world domination as a goal did not change. USA stood right on the road to achieve this goal.
It was a long established 40,000 years long tradition not allow your enemy to have better weapons than you have. It would be very strange if USSR would not want nuclear bomb from the moment USA had one.
You could see the very same tradition at work when India and Pakistan both had developed nukes.
You can see the very same tradition at work as Saudi Arabia is going yo have a nuclear weapons because Iran practically got them recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project
So why did they do it? was it a statement of power or was it the result of something..
On the wikipedia page it said that Georgii Flerov's letter to Stalin led him to start a plan to build his own country's nuclear weapons.. but could i have further details of the significance of this? and does this correlate to the nuclear arms race?
Thanks so much!When the Americans built M.I.K.E (the fist thermonuclear explosive device), the Russians needed a form of retaliation which came also in the form of a nuclear device. Their 50 megaton 'Tsar' bomb far outdone the Americans with their 15 kiloton device. This sparked the cold war, the race for space and all subsequent events. Most people don't realise how close we came to omnicide 40 years ago.
The world at that time was divided between the capitalist countries and those ruled by Communism (and the so called Third World). The Communists saw themselves as being in an epic, ideological struggle with the West, but the capitalists (US and allies) had bombs and the Communists did not.
The wikipedia page for the Cold War may be more helpful.
The USA had the bomb. Their greatest enemy the USSR didn't. So to give the country security against an attack from the USA they had to get it, (even though the technology was stolen from the USA). The outcome is protection designated MAD (mutually assured destruction), and that's why there have been no more wars in Europe.
Stalin blockaded Berlin in 1948. The city was within the Soviet zone, although subject to the control of all four major powers. The Soviets cut off all rail and road routes to West Berlin. Convinced that he could starve and freeze West Berlin into submission, no trucks or trains were allowed entry into the city. However, this decision backfired when Truman embarked on a highly visible move that would humiliate the Soviets internationally鈥攕upplying the beleaguered city by air. Military confrontation threatened while Truman, with British help, flew supplies over East Germany into West Berlin during the 1948鈥?9 blockade. This costly aerial supplying of West Berlin became known as the Berlin Airlift.
Truman joined eleven other nations in 1949 to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the United States' first "entangling" European alliance in 170 years. Stalin replied to these moves by integrating the economies of Eastern Europe in his version of the Marshall Plan, exploding the first Soviet atomic device in 1949, signing an alliance with Communist China in February 1950, and forming the Warsaw Pact, Eastern Europe's counterpart to NATO.
Soviets had always consider USA their enemy. Even during WW2 Marx doctrine of the world domination as a goal did not change. USA stood right on the road to achieve this goal.
It was a long established 40,000 years long tradition not allow your enemy to have better weapons than you have. It would be very strange if USSR would not want nuclear bomb from the moment USA had one.
You could see the very same tradition at work when India and Pakistan both had developed nukes.
You can see the very same tradition at work as Saudi Arabia is going yo have a nuclear weapons because Iran practically got them recently.
Help me please! this statement is true or false?
-the battle of gettysburg was as far north as the confederate troops ever ventured had they won the battle the war rould have turned in their favor possibly with support by foreign powers
TRUE OR FALSE??
please help me, thank youThe statement is True.
FALSE!!!! Jk idk but sounds pretty bogus I wouldn't believe it
TRUE OR FALSE??
please help me, thank youThe statement is True.
FALSE!!!! Jk idk but sounds pretty bogus I wouldn't believe it
What was Anton Zander La Vey infamous for? What did he do?
-He founded the church of satan , more info about him on the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVeyHe founded the church of satan , more info about him on the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVeyHe founded the church of satan , more info about him on the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey
Why do some scientists now think that some early Americans may have arrived in the Americas via boat?
-They found remains?
Found inscriptions about it?
New Evidence has chalenged the idea?
Evidence has shown that boats made later by Americans evolved from earlier designs?One can only come to conclusions, erroneous perhaps, that some Europeans escaped the besieging them at the time. Could have been someone trying to get away from the Egyptians and their slavery to any of the events during those ancient times. I too would have grabbed a boat and seeked to escape. That is all and well understood I am sure. It would be hard to say none escaped and got lost at sea only to be washed up on the shores of the Pre-Columbian Continent. And to survive here one would have to be something that could impress the natives well enough to let one live. Perhaps some new technology or ability to wield a sword and fight or probably both. So we have all these ruins left behind that show that something intelligent enough to construct them was here. A taught lesson among the natives or perhaps the whole taking of control by the visitor due to his or her advanced knowledge of how to do things like smelt gold, chisel rock, transport heavy objects and built incredible semblances of what had already been done in Egypt. The idea that in the future the Gods will come like "clouds over the ocean" with their sails and all had to come from somewhere. Quetzalcoatl was a red haired blue eyed leader who made the premonitions and had to run after losing the war over the use of human sacrifices. He ended up in Yucatan.
This probably happened many times as the Egyptian Empire extended far and wide and for a long time. Many things happened during these times and it would be hard to think that it didn't happen.Hannah,
The answer is "They found remains..." but not of human skeletons but of Chinese ceramics. I am providing a link to Dr. Thomas Layton who is the discoverer of the ceramics near Point Cabrillo, Califronia and that these same ceramics pre-date the discovery of North America by one Italian who sailed for Spain and his name was Christopher Columbus.
Very interesting history here even if it is considered to be controversial by some; the ceramics are priceless.
All the best,
Gerry
Gerry and Utopian LIBotomy are both correct.
Myth and legend.
Artifacts.
Genetics.
Geography.
Ability.
There is just too much evidence all over North and South America --
The Clovis Points, the Olmec heads, the "blonde" East Coast Inuits, Roman coins, of all things, found up and down the East Coast of South America, numerous myths and legends of white skinned, red or blonde haired, blue eyed people from Eastern Canada, to Mexico, to the Amazon.
I saw a History Channel show recently about a particular kind of ancient boat showing up in the Pacific Northwest - thought to be Native to North America until someone pointed out that the IDENTICAL boat, made in a very special way, only one of its kind - was also found in the Philippines, recessive European genetic traits showing up in pockets of Native North Americans like blue eyes or curly hair (famous Native American fighter, Crazy Horse had BOTH blue eyes and curly hair), ancient remains computer reconstructed face clearly showed that of a very, very white male, not Native, he was SO white the Washington courts all agreed in a case where the Canadian and American Natives were fighting to keep the remains, the natives lost.
Thor Heyerdahl has built boats out of ancient materials and sail all over the world in them.
In his solid balsa wood boat he sailed from South America to French Polynesia, 4,300 mile (8,000 km). He built a boat from solid Egyptian reeds and two other from papyrus, all from an ancient Egyptian design and has sailed across the Atlantic. Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, up to the Red Sea. He's been doing this for years. So it is quite possible.
And one last thing. Global Warming. It has melted the Northern Icecap as you know. Cartographers are going crazy. New islands that used to be completely covered over with ice are now popping up all over the North Atlantic. No 10 or 20 but 100s of these small land masses --- making it quite possible for an ancient vessel to sail from British Isles and island-hop all the way to Canada -- easily.
The Polynesians and the Chinese both had the sea vessels capable of making that trip across the Pacific and now we see the possibility of Northern Europeans crossing the Atlantic also.
To see THor's boats;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra_II#The_b鈥?/a>
Yes, ancient welch. Yes, they have found the remains of what would have been an ancient Norse person (viking - Scandinavian - Norwegian "haplogroup was identified with remains found near "The Money Pit" here in North America. The vikings were the best at sea travel and NAV that we know of in the Ancient world besides the Romans with their Anti therum device (they lack any proof of a real expidition on sea) the polynesians were also very good boat builders, and their haplogroup merged with a little clovis people could be native american.
There has been many factors, most of which are some of the artifacts that have been found on America and on other continents. These artifacts match and there was no way for them to cross on land.
Well its not like they could've taken a car?
Found inscriptions about it?
New Evidence has chalenged the idea?
Evidence has shown that boats made later by Americans evolved from earlier designs?One can only come to conclusions, erroneous perhaps, that some Europeans escaped the besieging them at the time. Could have been someone trying to get away from the Egyptians and their slavery to any of the events during those ancient times. I too would have grabbed a boat and seeked to escape. That is all and well understood I am sure. It would be hard to say none escaped and got lost at sea only to be washed up on the shores of the Pre-Columbian Continent. And to survive here one would have to be something that could impress the natives well enough to let one live. Perhaps some new technology or ability to wield a sword and fight or probably both. So we have all these ruins left behind that show that something intelligent enough to construct them was here. A taught lesson among the natives or perhaps the whole taking of control by the visitor due to his or her advanced knowledge of how to do things like smelt gold, chisel rock, transport heavy objects and built incredible semblances of what had already been done in Egypt. The idea that in the future the Gods will come like "clouds over the ocean" with their sails and all had to come from somewhere. Quetzalcoatl was a red haired blue eyed leader who made the premonitions and had to run after losing the war over the use of human sacrifices. He ended up in Yucatan.
This probably happened many times as the Egyptian Empire extended far and wide and for a long time. Many things happened during these times and it would be hard to think that it didn't happen.Hannah,
The answer is "They found remains..." but not of human skeletons but of Chinese ceramics. I am providing a link to Dr. Thomas Layton who is the discoverer of the ceramics near Point Cabrillo, Califronia and that these same ceramics pre-date the discovery of North America by one Italian who sailed for Spain and his name was Christopher Columbus.
Very interesting history here even if it is considered to be controversial by some; the ceramics are priceless.
All the best,
Gerry
Gerry and Utopian LIBotomy are both correct.
Myth and legend.
Artifacts.
Genetics.
Geography.
Ability.
There is just too much evidence all over North and South America --
The Clovis Points, the Olmec heads, the "blonde" East Coast Inuits, Roman coins, of all things, found up and down the East Coast of South America, numerous myths and legends of white skinned, red or blonde haired, blue eyed people from Eastern Canada, to Mexico, to the Amazon.
I saw a History Channel show recently about a particular kind of ancient boat showing up in the Pacific Northwest - thought to be Native to North America until someone pointed out that the IDENTICAL boat, made in a very special way, only one of its kind - was also found in the Philippines, recessive European genetic traits showing up in pockets of Native North Americans like blue eyes or curly hair (famous Native American fighter, Crazy Horse had BOTH blue eyes and curly hair), ancient remains computer reconstructed face clearly showed that of a very, very white male, not Native, he was SO white the Washington courts all agreed in a case where the Canadian and American Natives were fighting to keep the remains, the natives lost.
Thor Heyerdahl has built boats out of ancient materials and sail all over the world in them.
In his solid balsa wood boat he sailed from South America to French Polynesia, 4,300 mile (8,000 km). He built a boat from solid Egyptian reeds and two other from papyrus, all from an ancient Egyptian design and has sailed across the Atlantic. Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, up to the Red Sea. He's been doing this for years. So it is quite possible.
And one last thing. Global Warming. It has melted the Northern Icecap as you know. Cartographers are going crazy. New islands that used to be completely covered over with ice are now popping up all over the North Atlantic. No 10 or 20 but 100s of these small land masses --- making it quite possible for an ancient vessel to sail from British Isles and island-hop all the way to Canada -- easily.
The Polynesians and the Chinese both had the sea vessels capable of making that trip across the Pacific and now we see the possibility of Northern Europeans crossing the Atlantic also.
To see THor's boats;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra_II#The_b鈥?/a>
Yes, ancient welch. Yes, they have found the remains of what would have been an ancient Norse person (viking - Scandinavian - Norwegian "haplogroup was identified with remains found near "The Money Pit" here in North America. The vikings were the best at sea travel and NAV that we know of in the Ancient world besides the Romans with their Anti therum device (they lack any proof of a real expidition on sea) the polynesians were also very good boat builders, and their haplogroup merged with a little clovis people could be native american.
There has been many factors, most of which are some of the artifacts that have been found on America and on other continents. These artifacts match and there was no way for them to cross on land.
Well its not like they could've taken a car?
The Stamp Act of 1765 affected what?
-A. only businessmen and merchants.
B. only those who engaged in direct trade with Great Britain.
C. notaries and other public officials.
D. the lives of ordinary people, as well as those of the elite.
E. primarily colonial officials
B. only those who engaged in direct trade with Great Britain.
C. notaries and other public officials.
D. the lives of ordinary people, as well as those of the elite.
E. primarily colonial officials
Question about the Mafia???????????????
-Was the members of the mafia the reason for the downfall of the mafia?
I mean with all the testimonies the gave against the mafia and all of that?
Is there still a mafia today?The downfall was not due to the members really. It was simply the law enforcement cracking down on them on them. They were beginning to take to much control, the police and mafia kinda had deals, and to make it sound easier, basically treaties. But the police started noticing that the mafia was growing larger each year and they had to stop it. They caused the government alot of money because it was like a government working within a government.
sure there's still a mafia.
the reason the mafia fell was that the government started to get more and more determined to take it down and formed task forces, etc. if you want to trust the goodfellas i guess you could blame it on drugs but while there were internal problems it was just the fact that the police and government turned a blind eye and suddenly they stopped. it was a different time when the mafia controlled everything.
there are still dozens of mafias today, they just don't have nearly as much power
It was drugs.
Once the mafia started dealing drugs the money, jail time, and violence got too high.
the downfall was the world evolved, the ones who created the mob did so to provide a type of community.
I think I'm big meech! Larry hoover! whipping work, hallelujah. one nation under God. Real n*ggas gettin money from the f****g start!
I mean with all the testimonies the gave against the mafia and all of that?
Is there still a mafia today?The downfall was not due to the members really. It was simply the law enforcement cracking down on them on them. They were beginning to take to much control, the police and mafia kinda had deals, and to make it sound easier, basically treaties. But the police started noticing that the mafia was growing larger each year and they had to stop it. They caused the government alot of money because it was like a government working within a government.
sure there's still a mafia.
the reason the mafia fell was that the government started to get more and more determined to take it down and formed task forces, etc. if you want to trust the goodfellas i guess you could blame it on drugs but while there were internal problems it was just the fact that the police and government turned a blind eye and suddenly they stopped. it was a different time when the mafia controlled everything.
there are still dozens of mafias today, they just don't have nearly as much power
It was drugs.
Once the mafia started dealing drugs the money, jail time, and violence got too high.
the downfall was the world evolved, the ones who created the mob did so to provide a type of community.
I think I'm big meech! Larry hoover! whipping work, hallelujah. one nation under God. Real n*ggas gettin money from the f****g start!
Who was the first founder of the lochness monster? PLEASE HELP!!!!?
-i know its not real but its for school. i need to know who the first people and what year it was "found" in or what they think they saw nessie. so can you please tell me who the first or around the first few people who had found it. thanksNobody "founded" the Loch Ness Monster.
Stories and Legends spoke about it for centuries in Scotland before the infamous picture was taken in 1933 (?) which turned out to be a cruel and inconsiderate prank.
Therefore, no one knows really knows who first spotted Nessie, except that they likely spoke with a Scottish brogue.
Incidentally, the creature was real. Is has now, unfortunately died and its species, trapped for centuries in the vast, deep cold loch, became extinct. That's why it can't be found. Sadly, Nessie isn't with us anymore.The thing about Nessie is it could be real (I'm not an idiot I know it's unlikely) - there have been many sightings and scientific surveys to prove she doesn't exist have all failed and actually fuelled the belief by finding something! Sightings have been reported for hundreds of years - back to the 6th century. The first documented sighting was 1933.
You can't "found" a monster, you found institutions like churches or colleges.
Read the Life of St. Columba by Adamnan of Iona.
Stories and Legends spoke about it for centuries in Scotland before the infamous picture was taken in 1933 (?) which turned out to be a cruel and inconsiderate prank.
Therefore, no one knows really knows who first spotted Nessie, except that they likely spoke with a Scottish brogue.
Incidentally, the creature was real. Is has now, unfortunately died and its species, trapped for centuries in the vast, deep cold loch, became extinct. That's why it can't be found. Sadly, Nessie isn't with us anymore.The thing about Nessie is it could be real (I'm not an idiot I know it's unlikely) - there have been many sightings and scientific surveys to prove she doesn't exist have all failed and actually fuelled the belief by finding something! Sightings have been reported for hundreds of years - back to the 6th century. The first documented sighting was 1933.
You can't "found" a monster, you found institutions like churches or colleges.
Read the Life of St. Columba by Adamnan of Iona.
How does the Mongol Empire Influence us Today?
-I know that the Roman Empire has a lot of Influence on today's Society but I have not heard of any Influence from the Mongol Empire. What influence does the Mongol Empire bestow upon the present day? Examples will be great! :-)Apart from influencing the genetic and facial caracteristics of some eastern Europeans, they left as a legacy the movements of their legendary cavalry;Sir Basil H. Liddel-Heart has based his books (Indirect Strategy etc) on the movements of that cavalry and used it as the basis of the creation and use of our modern armoured formations.I would imagine that their conquest and the spread of their empire west could have sparked exploration in Europe to go east, Marco Polo traveled the silk road at roughly the same time the mongols expanded, this increase in trade was over all very influential.
In what order did these five nations leave the soviet union?
-Heya! I'm trying to do a bunch of research for an axis powers hetalia fanfiction, and I was wondering when these five countries left the soviet union: Lithuanina, latvia, estonia, Belarus and Ukraine. Or, if it didn't happen in an order, and it simply disbanded at one time in 1991 I'd be glad to know! Thanks a bunch~The exact dates are a bit ambiguous since different terms are used. I would date them: Lithuania (March 11, 1990), Latvia (Aug 21, 1991), Estonia (Aug 21, 1991), Ukraine (Aug 24, 1991), and Belarus (Aug 25, 1991).
The Lithuanian independence movement reemerged in 1988. On March 11, 1990, Vytautas Landsbergis, the non-Communist head of the largest Lithuanian popular movement (Sajudis), was elected president. On the same day, the Supreme Council rejected Soviet rule and declared the restoration of Lithuania's independence, the first Baltic republic to take this action.
Read more: Lithuania: History, Geography, Government, and Culture 鈥?Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0107730.h鈥?/a>
On August 21, 1991, Latvia claimed de facto independence. International recognition, including that of the U.S.S.R., followed. The United States, which had never recognized Latvia's forcible annexation by the U.S.S.R. and continued to accredit a Latvian Ambassador in Washington, recognized Latvia's renewed independence on September 2.
during the August 1991 coup in the U.S.S.R., Estonia declared full independence. The U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet recognized independent Estonia on September 6, 1991.
Belarus was retaken by the Soviets in 1944. It declared its sovereignty on July 27, 1990, and independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991.
Ukraine became an independent state on August 24, 1991, and was a co-founder of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, although it has not officially joined the organization.
The USSR was officially dissolved on Dec 8, 1991.
The Lithuanian independence movement reemerged in 1988. On March 11, 1990, Vytautas Landsbergis, the non-Communist head of the largest Lithuanian popular movement (Sajudis), was elected president. On the same day, the Supreme Council rejected Soviet rule and declared the restoration of Lithuania's independence, the first Baltic republic to take this action.
Read more: Lithuania: History, Geography, Government, and Culture 鈥?Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0107730.h鈥?/a>
On August 21, 1991, Latvia claimed de facto independence. International recognition, including that of the U.S.S.R., followed. The United States, which had never recognized Latvia's forcible annexation by the U.S.S.R. and continued to accredit a Latvian Ambassador in Washington, recognized Latvia's renewed independence on September 2.
during the August 1991 coup in the U.S.S.R., Estonia declared full independence. The U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet recognized independent Estonia on September 6, 1991.
Belarus was retaken by the Soviets in 1944. It declared its sovereignty on July 27, 1990, and independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991.
Ukraine became an independent state on August 24, 1991, and was a co-founder of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, although it has not officially joined the organization.
The USSR was officially dissolved on Dec 8, 1991.
[PLEASE help!!!] Is this an argument for or against appeasement, and why?
-With the following...please help! I have no idea if they are or not. My thoughts are in brackets.
(against)
Hitler鈥檚 comment after sending troops into
the Rhineland in 1936.
鈥淭he 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were
the most nerve-racking of my life. If the French had
opposed us then we would have had to withdraw. Our
forces were not strong enough to even put up with
moderate resistance.鈥?br>
(against)
鈥淚 shall only decide to take action against
Czechoslovakia if I am convinced that France will
not march and that Britain will not intervene in the
situation.鈥?br>
(for)
鈥淔rom the military point of view, time is in our favour.
If war with Germany has to come, it would be better
to fight in six to twelve months time, instead of at this
moment.鈥?br>
(for)
March 1938: Should Britain promise to help
Czechoslovakia if Germany invades?
Yes: 33% No: 43% Undecided: 24%
October 1938: Hitler says that he has no more
territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?
Yes: 7% No: 93%
(for)
鈥淗itler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a
genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not
very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.鈥?br>
(??)
There had been nothing weak or foolish about the
attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle
differences by discussion and conciliation, methods
that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their
failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation
for weakness and found that he could get his own way.
He could have been stopped earlier but only at the
risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen,
which explains why Chamberlain and the Western
leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.
Thank you SO Much!against
March 1938: Should Britain promise to help
Czechoslovakia if Germany invades?
Yes: 33% No: 43% Undecided: 24%
October 1938: Hitler says that he has no more
territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?
Yes: 7% No: 93%
appeasement didn't work, as shown by the HUGE change in public opinion
against
鈥淗itler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a
genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not
very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.鈥?br>
The speaker SERIOUSLY misjudged Hitler
\against
There had been nothing weak or foolish about the
attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle
differences by discussion and conciliation, methods
that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their
failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation
for weakness and found that he could get his own way.
He could have been stopped earlier but only at the
risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen,
which explains why Chamberlain and the Western
leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.
agreement or appeasement only works if both parties are using the same script - a rarity.
(against)
Hitler鈥檚 comment after sending troops into
the Rhineland in 1936.
鈥淭he 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were
the most nerve-racking of my life. If the French had
opposed us then we would have had to withdraw. Our
forces were not strong enough to even put up with
moderate resistance.鈥?br>
(against)
鈥淚 shall only decide to take action against
Czechoslovakia if I am convinced that France will
not march and that Britain will not intervene in the
situation.鈥?br>
(for)
鈥淔rom the military point of view, time is in our favour.
If war with Germany has to come, it would be better
to fight in six to twelve months time, instead of at this
moment.鈥?br>
(for)
March 1938: Should Britain promise to help
Czechoslovakia if Germany invades?
Yes: 33% No: 43% Undecided: 24%
October 1938: Hitler says that he has no more
territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?
Yes: 7% No: 93%
(for)
鈥淗itler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a
genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not
very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.鈥?br>
(??)
There had been nothing weak or foolish about the
attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle
differences by discussion and conciliation, methods
that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their
failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation
for weakness and found that he could get his own way.
He could have been stopped earlier but only at the
risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen,
which explains why Chamberlain and the Western
leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.
Thank you SO Much!against
March 1938: Should Britain promise to help
Czechoslovakia if Germany invades?
Yes: 33% No: 43% Undecided: 24%
October 1938: Hitler says that he has no more
territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?
Yes: 7% No: 93%
appeasement didn't work, as shown by the HUGE change in public opinion
against
鈥淗itler seemed to be a man of deep sincerity and a
genuine patriot. Hitler was a simple sort of peasant, not
very intelligent and no serious danger to anyone.鈥?br>
The speaker SERIOUSLY misjudged Hitler
\against
There had been nothing weak or foolish about the
attitude of the Western leaders. They tried to settle
differences by discussion and conciliation, methods
that had been highly successful in the 1920s. Their
failure was due to the fact that Hitler took consolation
for weakness and found that he could get his own way.
He could have been stopped earlier but only at the
risk of war. Discussion was the method of gentlemen,
which explains why Chamberlain and the Western
leaders favoured it and Hitler did not.
agreement or appeasement only works if both parties are using the same script - a rarity.
What group is often given credit for modern mysteries and hidden treasures?
-because of their sudden disappearance from history (involves the crusades).
What is the most significant contribution of architecture to man?
-The Pantheon dome in Rome. Originally below ground level with a graveyard inside for military men of valour. Today, the structure is at street level, has been converted into a hokee church but remains the most original of the standing ruins of Rome. The Pantheon is Western Architecture weathering very well through the centuries.
edit:
there will be other examples cited, but without extensive government rebuilding and preservation to entice the tourist industry, those structures would have faded to dust. The Pantheon stands as its own structure.The Pantheon dome in Rome. Originally below ground level with a graveyard inside for military men of valour. Today, the structure is at street level, has been converted into a hokee church but remains the most original of the standing ruins of Rome. The Pantheon is Western Architecture weathering very well through the centuries.
edit:
there will be other examples cited, but without extensive government rebuilding and preservation to entice the tourist industry, those structures would have faded to dust. The Pantheon stands as its own structure.Taj Mahal . . . . in the blind love of Mumtaj Mahal , "the heaven on the earth" !
Ancient greeces parthenon/acropolis including the spectacular elgin marbles
The collesium
The arch
edit:
there will be other examples cited, but without extensive government rebuilding and preservation to entice the tourist industry, those structures would have faded to dust. The Pantheon stands as its own structure.The Pantheon dome in Rome. Originally below ground level with a graveyard inside for military men of valour. Today, the structure is at street level, has been converted into a hokee church but remains the most original of the standing ruins of Rome. The Pantheon is Western Architecture weathering very well through the centuries.
edit:
there will be other examples cited, but without extensive government rebuilding and preservation to entice the tourist industry, those structures would have faded to dust. The Pantheon stands as its own structure.Taj Mahal . . . . in the blind love of Mumtaj Mahal , "the heaven on the earth" !
Ancient greeces parthenon/acropolis including the spectacular elgin marbles
The collesium
The arch
To what extent was the failure of Collective Security responsible for the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939?
-Puma,
rather than listen to the conspiracy theorists out there - the ones that claim the USA was the complete and sole cause of the Second World War - here is a site by the British that explain in detail the reasons for the failure of the League of Nations. In his 2nd Volume of the Second World War (subtitled "Alone") Sir Winston Churchill discusses how the League of Nations when failing to act in 1935 on German aircraft development and other war materiels were equally responsible for Hitler's rise to power as were the German people themselves.
Hope this helps and all the best,
Gerry0 extent
http://www.theamericanateam.com/timeline鈥?/a>
rather than listen to the conspiracy theorists out there - the ones that claim the USA was the complete and sole cause of the Second World War - here is a site by the British that explain in detail the reasons for the failure of the League of Nations. In his 2nd Volume of the Second World War (subtitled "Alone") Sir Winston Churchill discusses how the League of Nations when failing to act in 1935 on German aircraft development and other war materiels were equally responsible for Hitler's rise to power as were the German people themselves.
Hope this helps and all the best,
Gerry0 extent
http://www.theamericanateam.com/timeline鈥?/a>
What was Hitler's view on Captalism?
-Well, given that he was very much against Communism, an ideology which is the exact opposite of Capitalism, what was his views on Capitalism then??I was against the system of jewish usury capitalism. The economy should be regulated for the benefit of the nation, not for the sole benefit of the international jew bankers as the "global" economy is run now.
Under National Socialism, engineers would not lose their jobs to outsourcing, and great industrial cities would not be disintegrating and turning back to farmland. There would be no such thing as Goldman Sachs, or the Federal Reserve, or big box stores full of merchandise from China. If a business was run to the detriment of the Volk in the long run such as Walmart then it would not be allowed to exist.
Capitalism and Central controlled economy(communism) are not the only types of economies out there.
Nazism practiced Corporatism where the government managed the sectors of the economy. Each sector is represented by a trade union that worked with the government. People can own their own businesses or run their own companies, but the government would tell them what they should produce or make.
So he hated capitalism less than communism.
Hitler was a socialist and as most socialists he saw capitalism as evil, maybe the evil he can use for a while, but still evil.
His pre-election rhetoric was directed against capitalists even heavier that against Jews.
When he came to power, Hitler had forced German capitalists to shorten the working hours of their workers, to provide them with long paid vacation, free childcare for their babies and many other traditional socialist goodies.
He also instituted heavy government regulations and mandates from the production plan for each farm and factory to the strict anti-tobacco regulations.
In his socialistic views wealth had to be spread among all of the German society and the goals of societies (natural, as his National Socialist Government saw them) was much more important than the personal goals of any citizen.
I had linked the official 25 point program which Nazi party not only proclaimed, but honestly tried to fulfill. Points related to economy in that document are all anti-capitalist.
Reference to the support that anti-business socialist got from corporations does not prove anything. Corporations were giving support to many socialists. Communist Lenin was bankrolled by couple very wealthy Russian capitalists before he grabbed the power. But when socialist gets the power, corporations are giving him money more as ransom to avoid being squashed by the big government.
Look as tobacco companies "volunteer" to support all sorts of anti-smoking campaigns.
It is all about business.
ADDED:
to "Claudia De la serna": Hitler was the head of the National SOCIALIST party of German Workers.
This is the official name of the party. You have to come up with really solid arguments if you want to portray the head of the SOCIALIST party as not a socialist.
The fact that Hitler killed communists is not a proof. Stalin and Mao had killed much more communists than Hitler and yet they are certified communists themselves.
The fact that corporations gave money to his party events and recreation programs for workers is not the proof. It could be result of pure extortion. Jewish businesses gave him money in the hope to be left alone. Those Jewish "donations" do not make him any less anti-Semite.
he loved it the ford Motor company gave Hitler 50,000 marks from 1933 every year on his Birthday ro show their Loyality
in 1932 he needed 500,000 marks to contest the 1933 elections
and FDR Prescott Bush Rockefeller Lindbergh JP Morgan and associates Warberg of the chase bank
IG Farben Standard Oil raised 80 % of the Money
this was the election that put Hitler into power
$500,000.00 in 1932 had the same buying power as $7,506,130.14 in 2011.
Rockefeller from 1924 to 1932 Gave Hitler and the NAZIS 32 million
$32,000,000.00 in 1932 had the same buying power as $480,392,328.77 in 2011.
Not bad for an Isolationist country that forced the UK into a Fire sale for 50 rusty buckets to save Continental europe with Cash and Carry
Hitler was paid for by big business because capitalism was failing and they were afraid that the Communists would take over. Fascism is what capitalism turns to when it is in deep crisis. Does that answer your question?
He did not like capitalism at all. However, he had a huge preference to it over communism considering the countries practicing it fit into the 'master race' category in his sick mind.
Hitler wasn't socialist, anybody that say he was is completely wrong. Socialists and communists were even groups targeted during the holocaust. Fascism is capitalism in decay.
I think Der F眉hrer tolerated profit, and probably lending money for profit, as long as the proceeds went to the Reich.
He was 100% in favour of capitalism.
Capitalism is not the opposite of communism. Fascism is the opposite of communism.
Under National Socialism, engineers would not lose their jobs to outsourcing, and great industrial cities would not be disintegrating and turning back to farmland. There would be no such thing as Goldman Sachs, or the Federal Reserve, or big box stores full of merchandise from China. If a business was run to the detriment of the Volk in the long run such as Walmart then it would not be allowed to exist.
Capitalism and Central controlled economy(communism) are not the only types of economies out there.
Nazism practiced Corporatism where the government managed the sectors of the economy. Each sector is represented by a trade union that worked with the government. People can own their own businesses or run their own companies, but the government would tell them what they should produce or make.
So he hated capitalism less than communism.
Hitler was a socialist and as most socialists he saw capitalism as evil, maybe the evil he can use for a while, but still evil.
His pre-election rhetoric was directed against capitalists even heavier that against Jews.
When he came to power, Hitler had forced German capitalists to shorten the working hours of their workers, to provide them with long paid vacation, free childcare for their babies and many other traditional socialist goodies.
He also instituted heavy government regulations and mandates from the production plan for each farm and factory to the strict anti-tobacco regulations.
In his socialistic views wealth had to be spread among all of the German society and the goals of societies (natural, as his National Socialist Government saw them) was much more important than the personal goals of any citizen.
I had linked the official 25 point program which Nazi party not only proclaimed, but honestly tried to fulfill. Points related to economy in that document are all anti-capitalist.
Reference to the support that anti-business socialist got from corporations does not prove anything. Corporations were giving support to many socialists. Communist Lenin was bankrolled by couple very wealthy Russian capitalists before he grabbed the power. But when socialist gets the power, corporations are giving him money more as ransom to avoid being squashed by the big government.
Look as tobacco companies "volunteer" to support all sorts of anti-smoking campaigns.
It is all about business.
ADDED:
to "Claudia De la serna": Hitler was the head of the National SOCIALIST party of German Workers.
This is the official name of the party. You have to come up with really solid arguments if you want to portray the head of the SOCIALIST party as not a socialist.
The fact that Hitler killed communists is not a proof. Stalin and Mao had killed much more communists than Hitler and yet they are certified communists themselves.
The fact that corporations gave money to his party events and recreation programs for workers is not the proof. It could be result of pure extortion. Jewish businesses gave him money in the hope to be left alone. Those Jewish "donations" do not make him any less anti-Semite.
he loved it the ford Motor company gave Hitler 50,000 marks from 1933 every year on his Birthday ro show their Loyality
in 1932 he needed 500,000 marks to contest the 1933 elections
and FDR Prescott Bush Rockefeller Lindbergh JP Morgan and associates Warberg of the chase bank
IG Farben Standard Oil raised 80 % of the Money
this was the election that put Hitler into power
$500,000.00 in 1932 had the same buying power as $7,506,130.14 in 2011.
Rockefeller from 1924 to 1932 Gave Hitler and the NAZIS 32 million
$32,000,000.00 in 1932 had the same buying power as $480,392,328.77 in 2011.
Not bad for an Isolationist country that forced the UK into a Fire sale for 50 rusty buckets to save Continental europe with Cash and Carry
Hitler was paid for by big business because capitalism was failing and they were afraid that the Communists would take over. Fascism is what capitalism turns to when it is in deep crisis. Does that answer your question?
He did not like capitalism at all. However, he had a huge preference to it over communism considering the countries practicing it fit into the 'master race' category in his sick mind.
Hitler wasn't socialist, anybody that say he was is completely wrong. Socialists and communists were even groups targeted during the holocaust. Fascism is capitalism in decay.
I think Der F眉hrer tolerated profit, and probably lending money for profit, as long as the proceeds went to the Reich.
He was 100% in favour of capitalism.
Capitalism is not the opposite of communism. Fascism is the opposite of communism.
What are some reasons the rebelling samurai lost the Satsuma Rebellion?
-Besides having inferior weaponry.
Please also list how a reason had affected the outcome of the rebellion as well.they didnt have money and other samurais joined the other side for money - theyre mercenaries after all.
You need to do your own work.
Please also list how a reason had affected the outcome of the rebellion as well.they didnt have money and other samurais joined the other side for money - theyre mercenaries after all.
You need to do your own work.
Regarding slavery, one of the constitutional convention's most important decisions?
-a. allowed the slave trade to continue indefinitely
b. permitted congress to outlaw the importation of slaves in 1808
c. provided for an immediate end to the importation of African slaves
d. declared slavery to be illegal as of 1808
e. declared that slaves could not be purchased in the U.S. after 1808
b. permitted congress to outlaw the importation of slaves in 1808
c. provided for an immediate end to the importation of African slaves
d. declared slavery to be illegal as of 1808
e. declared that slaves could not be purchased in the U.S. after 1808
How did Mahatma Gandhi portray integrity?
-Hi everyone, how did Gandhi show the quality of integrity in his life?By preaching non-violence in the face of violence
2011年8月3日星期三
Why did Richard Nixon start the EPA?
-I'm trying to determine if there was a specific event responsible for Nixon's consideration in creating the EPA or if it was the culmination of something else.
How does the Mongol Empire Influence us Today?
-I know that the Roman Empire has a lot of Influence on today's Society but I have not heard of any Influence from the Mongol Empire. What influence does the Mongol Empire bestow upon the present day? Examples will be great! :-)Apart from influencing the genetic and facial caracteristics of some eastern Europeans, they left as a legacy the movements of their legendary cavalry;Sir Basil H. Liddel-Heart has based his books (Indirect Strategy etc) on the movements of that cavalry and used it as the basis of the creation and use of our modern armoured formations.I would imagine that their conquest and the spread of their empire west could have sparked exploration in Europe to go east, Marco Polo traveled the silk road at roughly the same time the mongols expanded, this increase in trade was over all very influential.
When was the term "dad" used?
-Was is at least 1950? I'm writing a story, taken place in 1954 and I'm curious if I can use that term, or I have to use like papa, father, etc.The TV show "I Love Lucy" was filmed and set during the '50s and when the Ricardos have their son he refers to Ricky as dad. The term itself dates to the 15th century.dad
recorded from c.1500, but probably much older, from child's speech, nearly universal and probably prehistoric (cf. Welsh tad, Ir. daid, Czech, L., Gk. tata, Lith. tete, Skt. tatah all of the same meaning).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term鈥?/a>
I was born in 1952 and always called my male parent "Dad" or "Daddy," and I could talk by 1954, so sure, go ahead.
well depending on where one is from is the main point. Like me im from the middle east we say baba or abi. In some parts they say father and some say dad, papa.. it really doesn't matter.
You can use any term in your story. The word Dad is being used from a long time ago.
dont use the term dad . . its new fashion . . west world m not sure !
recorded from c.1500, but probably much older, from child's speech, nearly universal and probably prehistoric (cf. Welsh tad, Ir. daid, Czech, L., Gk. tata, Lith. tete, Skt. tatah all of the same meaning).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term鈥?/a>
I was born in 1952 and always called my male parent "Dad" or "Daddy," and I could talk by 1954, so sure, go ahead.
well depending on where one is from is the main point. Like me im from the middle east we say baba or abi. In some parts they say father and some say dad, papa.. it really doesn't matter.
You can use any term in your story. The word Dad is being used from a long time ago.
dont use the term dad . . its new fashion . . west world m not sure !
Who was the first person to fire an official salute in recognition of the independence of the US.?
-Even before the war of independence was finished.
Who fired it and when and where..?DJ,
This is a good question. The first salute was received by the United States on 16 November, 1776 when one Dutch Governor by the name of Johannes de Graaff fired off an 11 gun salvo (an official designated naval salvo salute) which was directly after receiving notification by a single cannon fire shot (announcing while also saluting) by the U.S.S. Andrea Doria as she entered the foreign port of St. Eusatatius (aka Statia today). This is the first recorded salute as presented to the USA in recognition of our independence from a country that would later become one of our most important allies during WW I, WW II, Korea and beyond.
This story is a long one and a good one and I could expand further if you wish but the above paragraph answers your question without this getting to lengthy (and I am uncertain as to how much detail you actually want). I am including a link for Statia tourism office as it is today.
Great question鈥?star coming鈥?I like many others simply love our country and our history.
All the best,
Gerry
EDIT: DJ, I am also including a link to the U.S. Navy website that has a painting by one Phillips Melville depicting the scene. Just click the painting for a high resolution jpeg of the historic salute.
Semper Fidelis,
Gerry
2nd EDIT:
For the record and based on U.S. Naval History 鈥?the periods of designation are as follows:
Continental Period: 1775 鈥?1890
Oceanic Period: 1890 鈥?1945
Transoceanic Period: 1945 鈥?1992
Littoral/Open Ocean Period: 1992 鈥?Present Day
The official designation of 鈥淯SS鈥?was not established officially until 1907. However, what is noted in U.S. Naval History is that the 鈥淯SS鈥?designation became an 鈥渦nderstood鈥?term for the Continental Period of the U.S. Navy 鈥?this is noted within historical documents of the U.S. Navy located at the Navy Yard in Washington DC. By way of example when John Paul Jones is so appointed Commanding Officer of the (then) newly constructed USS Ranger on June 14, 1777 (the same day the Stars and Stripes were adopted as the official National Ensign of the United States) the obvious point here is 鈥淯SS鈥?was not official on the records then; it is now and is recognized as such. Same too with the first U.S. Admiral of the U.S. Navy in one David Glasgow Farragut, born in Tennessee he would fight for the Union and would win the day on board the USS Hartford in 1862 (Continental Period Navy) and is best known for the Battle of New Orleans and one phrase stated to the USS Brooklyn 鈥淒amn the torpedoes, full speed ahead鈥?
Feel free to dig through the information and discover for yourself the knowledge I have presented here. http://www.history.navy.mil/
Lastly, and an important case in the name 鈥淎ndrea鈥?is an Italian masculine name for 鈥淎ndrew鈥?and its namesake given after one Andrea Doria (30 November 1466 鈥?25 November 1560) was an Italian admiral from Genoa. I will revert back to Shakespeare and simply ask 鈥溾€hat鈥檚 in a name?.....鈥? 鈥淎ndrea Doria鈥?is equal to 鈥淎ndrew Doria鈥? and more importantly Naval Officers called the ship most commonly 鈥淎ndrea Doria鈥?
To my good friend "Muinghan" - glad I could finally "teach you" something in history ~ normally between you and Ammianus it is the other way around for me. Semper Fidelis Muinghan! Thanks too for the kind words.
All the best,
GerryANDREW DORIA, formerly merchant brig Defiance, was a brig, nicknamed the "Black Brig", She was a handsome devil.
She was purchased by the Continental Congress in October of 1775.
She is most famous for her participation in the Battle of Nassau鈥攖he first amphibious engagement by the Continental Navy and the Continental Marines.
AND, I guess --- for being the first United States vessel to receive a salute from a foreign power.
Mr Me -- good catch, Gerry is a quick, rarely incorrect --- but he obviously has girls on the brain tonight.
And Gerry -- how the hell do you know this?! Nassau is a given. But the first to receive a salute???? This question has never even crossed my mind nor have I ever heard this story.
Getting old, mind is slipping, off to read this damned story from Gerry's link. <heavy sigh>
Gerry is 99% correct. The ship a brig was named Andrew Doria not Andrea Doria and it did not carry the USS designation , though there was much later a USS Andrew Doria.
Who fired it and when and where..?DJ,
This is a good question. The first salute was received by the United States on 16 November, 1776 when one Dutch Governor by the name of Johannes de Graaff fired off an 11 gun salvo (an official designated naval salvo salute) which was directly after receiving notification by a single cannon fire shot (announcing while also saluting) by the U.S.S. Andrea Doria as she entered the foreign port of St. Eusatatius (aka Statia today). This is the first recorded salute as presented to the USA in recognition of our independence from a country that would later become one of our most important allies during WW I, WW II, Korea and beyond.
This story is a long one and a good one and I could expand further if you wish but the above paragraph answers your question without this getting to lengthy (and I am uncertain as to how much detail you actually want). I am including a link for Statia tourism office as it is today.
Great question鈥?star coming鈥?I like many others simply love our country and our history.
All the best,
Gerry
EDIT: DJ, I am also including a link to the U.S. Navy website that has a painting by one Phillips Melville depicting the scene. Just click the painting for a high resolution jpeg of the historic salute.
Semper Fidelis,
Gerry
2nd EDIT:
For the record and based on U.S. Naval History 鈥?the periods of designation are as follows:
Continental Period: 1775 鈥?1890
Oceanic Period: 1890 鈥?1945
Transoceanic Period: 1945 鈥?1992
Littoral/Open Ocean Period: 1992 鈥?Present Day
The official designation of 鈥淯SS鈥?was not established officially until 1907. However, what is noted in U.S. Naval History is that the 鈥淯SS鈥?designation became an 鈥渦nderstood鈥?term for the Continental Period of the U.S. Navy 鈥?this is noted within historical documents of the U.S. Navy located at the Navy Yard in Washington DC. By way of example when John Paul Jones is so appointed Commanding Officer of the (then) newly constructed USS Ranger on June 14, 1777 (the same day the Stars and Stripes were adopted as the official National Ensign of the United States) the obvious point here is 鈥淯SS鈥?was not official on the records then; it is now and is recognized as such. Same too with the first U.S. Admiral of the U.S. Navy in one David Glasgow Farragut, born in Tennessee he would fight for the Union and would win the day on board the USS Hartford in 1862 (Continental Period Navy) and is best known for the Battle of New Orleans and one phrase stated to the USS Brooklyn 鈥淒amn the torpedoes, full speed ahead鈥?
Feel free to dig through the information and discover for yourself the knowledge I have presented here. http://www.history.navy.mil/
Lastly, and an important case in the name 鈥淎ndrea鈥?is an Italian masculine name for 鈥淎ndrew鈥?and its namesake given after one Andrea Doria (30 November 1466 鈥?25 November 1560) was an Italian admiral from Genoa. I will revert back to Shakespeare and simply ask 鈥溾€hat鈥檚 in a name?.....鈥? 鈥淎ndrea Doria鈥?is equal to 鈥淎ndrew Doria鈥? and more importantly Naval Officers called the ship most commonly 鈥淎ndrea Doria鈥?
To my good friend "Muinghan" - glad I could finally "teach you" something in history ~ normally between you and Ammianus it is the other way around for me. Semper Fidelis Muinghan! Thanks too for the kind words.
All the best,
GerryANDREW DORIA, formerly merchant brig Defiance, was a brig, nicknamed the "Black Brig", She was a handsome devil.
She was purchased by the Continental Congress in October of 1775.
She is most famous for her participation in the Battle of Nassau鈥攖he first amphibious engagement by the Continental Navy and the Continental Marines.
AND, I guess --- for being the first United States vessel to receive a salute from a foreign power.
Mr Me -- good catch, Gerry is a quick, rarely incorrect --- but he obviously has girls on the brain tonight.
And Gerry -- how the hell do you know this?! Nassau is a given. But the first to receive a salute???? This question has never even crossed my mind nor have I ever heard this story.
Getting old, mind is slipping, off to read this damned story from Gerry's link. <heavy sigh>
Gerry is 99% correct. The ship a brig was named Andrew Doria not Andrea Doria and it did not carry the USS designation , though there was much later a USS Andrew Doria.
What really transpired in the britain hacking scandal?hw was is done?
-I'm not sure what you want to know - essentially it was discovered that by phoning a person's phone number and then a simple default code that voice mail messages left on the phone could be listened to. However when a number of celebrities found that stories were sneaking into the media about them and mostly into one newspaper - the News of the World that only they and one or two other people knew about they went to the police. Two people were arrested, charged and convicted and then jailed of phone hacking. The story largely died down, those who had been hacked were slowly being told by the police, they sued and the News of the World settled out of court. In some cases serious amounts of money were paid, including legal fees. At the time the then editor of the News of the world - Andy Coulson resigned but was swiftly hired by David Cameron, then leader of the Conservative party, to do his PR. He claimed that he knew nothing about the phone hacking but resigned on principle.
Then things took a twist, a couple of weeks ago it emerged that one of the people who's phone was hacked was Milly Dowler, a young, teenaged girl. She had gone missing and for a while no one knew if she had run away from home or had an accident, or was abducted. Glenn Mulcaire, who was doing the phone hacking, deleted a couple of messages that he parents left on her phone, leaving them to hope that she was still alive. It turns out that she had been abducted and had been murdered. Other allegations followed - the families of the two girls abducted and murdered at Soham, the families and victims of the London tube/bus bombings and possibly even US victims of September 11. Rupert Murdoch, his son James and other senior executives claim that they had no knowledge of any of this.
Meanwhile it became obvious that the police had failed to investigate this properly, they had 11,000 pages of transcripts of phone hacking evidence but it seems that there were close links to the police and News International, the owners of the News of the World.
Shadowing all of this was an attempt by Rupert Murdoch to buy Sky TV, the UK's only satellite television broadcaster which would have given him a very powerful presence in UK media ownership. Besides the News of the World he owns the Sun, the Times and Sunday Times. Old Rupe likes to enjoy a considerable amount of political influence and both he and his senior executives have cultivated strong links with our politicians - both Labour and Conservative. Clearly this is unhealthy and has led to accusations that he has a considerable amout of political cout in the UK. The Conservative government for example flagged through his takeover of Sky recently, although Murdoch had to withdraw that bid.
There are further accusations that News International journalists bribed police officers - an offence itself and there appears to have been a culture at the organisation where they considered themselves to be above the law.
Where it goes from here is difficult to guess - the News of the World has ceased publication, the Sky bid is off a number of people have resigned from News International and the police have made and are continuing to make a number of arrests. Few people have come out of this with any credit - the Guardian newspaper which tenaciously plugged away, a couple of labour backbench MPs, but it has exposed the way that politics is often conducted - behind closed doors where deals are struck. Cameron no longer employs Coulson, he resigned from that job and is under pressure to explain his many other links with News International. I think he'll survive, but he looks to have been acting under their influence and not as you would expect as someone who is now prime-minister with any degree of independence.
When it settles down i think we'll see quite a few people jailed and that's in addition to the reputations of several politicians and policemen being wrecked.watch movie enemy of the state to have a good idea
Then things took a twist, a couple of weeks ago it emerged that one of the people who's phone was hacked was Milly Dowler, a young, teenaged girl. She had gone missing and for a while no one knew if she had run away from home or had an accident, or was abducted. Glenn Mulcaire, who was doing the phone hacking, deleted a couple of messages that he parents left on her phone, leaving them to hope that she was still alive. It turns out that she had been abducted and had been murdered. Other allegations followed - the families of the two girls abducted and murdered at Soham, the families and victims of the London tube/bus bombings and possibly even US victims of September 11. Rupert Murdoch, his son James and other senior executives claim that they had no knowledge of any of this.
Meanwhile it became obvious that the police had failed to investigate this properly, they had 11,000 pages of transcripts of phone hacking evidence but it seems that there were close links to the police and News International, the owners of the News of the World.
Shadowing all of this was an attempt by Rupert Murdoch to buy Sky TV, the UK's only satellite television broadcaster which would have given him a very powerful presence in UK media ownership. Besides the News of the World he owns the Sun, the Times and Sunday Times. Old Rupe likes to enjoy a considerable amount of political influence and both he and his senior executives have cultivated strong links with our politicians - both Labour and Conservative. Clearly this is unhealthy and has led to accusations that he has a considerable amout of political cout in the UK. The Conservative government for example flagged through his takeover of Sky recently, although Murdoch had to withdraw that bid.
There are further accusations that News International journalists bribed police officers - an offence itself and there appears to have been a culture at the organisation where they considered themselves to be above the law.
Where it goes from here is difficult to guess - the News of the World has ceased publication, the Sky bid is off a number of people have resigned from News International and the police have made and are continuing to make a number of arrests. Few people have come out of this with any credit - the Guardian newspaper which tenaciously plugged away, a couple of labour backbench MPs, but it has exposed the way that politics is often conducted - behind closed doors where deals are struck. Cameron no longer employs Coulson, he resigned from that job and is under pressure to explain his many other links with News International. I think he'll survive, but he looks to have been acting under their influence and not as you would expect as someone who is now prime-minister with any degree of independence.
When it settles down i think we'll see quite a few people jailed and that's in addition to the reputations of several politicians and policemen being wrecked.watch movie enemy of the state to have a good idea
Why is the ''Jacob Stone in Westminster Abbey ..?
-And why is placed under the coronation throne...?The Stone of Jacob appears in the Book of Genesis as the stone used as a pillow by Jacob at the place later called Bet-El. As Jacob had a vision in his sleep, he then consecrated the stone to God.
There is a Scottish Legend that the Stone of Scone, traditionally used for coronations of Scottish kings in the High Middle Ages, is the Stone of Jacob. It was the Stone of Scone that was placed under the Coronation throne in Westminster Abbey, it has now been returned to Scotland.
It is not in Westminster Abbey as it has been returned to Scotland and is now in Edinburgh Castle. It is known by various names - Stone of Scone or Stone of Destiny.
It was origianally captured by Edward I and moved to Westminster and placed under his chair - symbolizing England's dominance over Scotland. Thr tradition was then established of using it in Coronations. After the Act of Union the importance of the stone is rather academic.
There is a Scottish Legend that the Stone of Scone, traditionally used for coronations of Scottish kings in the High Middle Ages, is the Stone of Jacob. It was the Stone of Scone that was placed under the Coronation throne in Westminster Abbey, it has now been returned to Scotland.
It is not in Westminster Abbey as it has been returned to Scotland and is now in Edinburgh Castle. It is known by various names - Stone of Scone or Stone of Destiny.
It was origianally captured by Edward I and moved to Westminster and placed under his chair - symbolizing England's dominance over Scotland. Thr tradition was then established of using it in Coronations. After the Act of Union the importance of the stone is rather academic.
What led Spain to a civil war?
-And what Franco wanted to accomplish?
And why he was friends with Hitler and Mussolini.War between facism and socialism.
General Franco was facist (as was Hitler and Mussolin)i who would have preferred to see another facist state in Europe. They provided help notably planes for air raids such as Guenica - a portent for how civilian bombing would be such a feature of WW2 a few years later.A left-wing coalition government was elected to power in 1935. The rich, the powerful and the church viewed this as a threat to their power and to their wealth. The new government set about getting rid of disloyal generals, as a consequence Franco was removed from his post and was put in command of the Canary islands. In 1936 they Franco and his supports launched a well planned coup, they made some progress but failed to capture all cities. Armed workers formed themselves into militias and fought back.
People from all over the world, recognising that fascism was spreading across Europe, seen it as their fight too, many of them joined international brigades and came to Spain to fight against Franco.
The war was to determine whether Spain would be communist or fascist. It fell to Fascism.
France wanted Fascism
He was friends with Mussolini and Hitler because they were fascists.
And why he was friends with Hitler and Mussolini.War between facism and socialism.
General Franco was facist (as was Hitler and Mussolin)i who would have preferred to see another facist state in Europe. They provided help notably planes for air raids such as Guenica - a portent for how civilian bombing would be such a feature of WW2 a few years later.A left-wing coalition government was elected to power in 1935. The rich, the powerful and the church viewed this as a threat to their power and to their wealth. The new government set about getting rid of disloyal generals, as a consequence Franco was removed from his post and was put in command of the Canary islands. In 1936 they Franco and his supports launched a well planned coup, they made some progress but failed to capture all cities. Armed workers formed themselves into militias and fought back.
People from all over the world, recognising that fascism was spreading across Europe, seen it as their fight too, many of them joined international brigades and came to Spain to fight against Franco.
The war was to determine whether Spain would be communist or fascist. It fell to Fascism.
France wanted Fascism
He was friends with Mussolini and Hitler because they were fascists.
Who is the earliest known society that had a formal marriage agreement and/or ceremony?
-Just a guess here, but the cavemen were most likely the earliest society. There were no lawyers, or pre-nups the male would simply club the female gently than drag her off to the cave where they would live untill one or the other, or both were eaten by a dinosaur.It seems to go with Humanity, there is Archaeological evidence of males being specifically buried with a female of a similar age, but at different times, leading to the inference that they were a couple, in other words married, as we have no way of knowing if a marriage ceremony took place, this is pure surmise.
However the marriage ceremonies all pre date the written word, so we can only conclude they certainly go back a long way.
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. There is vague evidence that primitive people from the Stone Age all over the world already practiced a form of partner bonding. By the time of the Classical period however, documentation exist of marriage contracts.
http://santafe.academia.edu/LauraFortuna鈥?/a>
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/hig鈥?/a>
All ancient societies from which records survive had marriage, so we can guess that it existed as an institution before then. Also, modern hunter/gather societies, our best guide to how we lived before cities, writing, and so on, have marriage (the importance of ceremony may vary among groups).
Marriage has existed as long as humanity has existed, as far as we know. Even the most primitive tribes have marriage ceremonies and rituals. It is likely that marriage as an institution existed in distant prehistory.
However the marriage ceremonies all pre date the written word, so we can only conclude they certainly go back a long way.
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. There is vague evidence that primitive people from the Stone Age all over the world already practiced a form of partner bonding. By the time of the Classical period however, documentation exist of marriage contracts.
http://santafe.academia.edu/LauraFortuna鈥?/a>
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/hig鈥?/a>
All ancient societies from which records survive had marriage, so we can guess that it existed as an institution before then. Also, modern hunter/gather societies, our best guide to how we lived before cities, writing, and so on, have marriage (the importance of ceremony may vary among groups).
Marriage has existed as long as humanity has existed, as far as we know. Even the most primitive tribes have marriage ceremonies and rituals. It is likely that marriage as an institution existed in distant prehistory.
Y'all answer this ya here! Who do you feel is the most influential person in the history of America?
-It can be a man or a woman.Abraham Lincoln I believe. He stopped the country from splitting apart and therefore stopped America from becoming two separate nations. He also aided to end slavery.Perhaps Thomas Jefferson, who wrote most of the US Constitution and served as president as well, and as a founding father in the pre-revolutionary period of resistance. He founded our national library and was considered one of the most intelligent men in all of history.
FDR or Washington!!
i'm english, so probably not the best one to answer :P
maybe Truman? (dropped the A-Bomb)
OJ
FDR or Washington!!
i'm english, so probably not the best one to answer :P
maybe Truman? (dropped the A-Bomb)
OJ
How did TWO of the following help shape American national culture in the 1920's?
-Advertising
Entertainment
Mass Production
I need you guys to answer it not too long or short. Thank you so much!
Entertainment
Mass Production
I need you guys to answer it not too long or short. Thank you so much!
After WWI the most important concern was rebuilding governments.?
-Yes or No.?nah! governments weren't high on anyone's list. the world had just seen a war that equalled to none before. still shell-shocked from it's aftermath, the world in general wanted to rebuild industry, then the people, then the govts, possibly in that order. due to lack of foresight, WW2 happened slightly more than 20 years later. sad, sad, sad!
It was a romanticised businessmens' war.Their major concern was business.
It was a romanticised businessmens' war.Their major concern was business.
In which language did Luther write his 95 Thesis, Latin or German?
-In latin in 1511 Friends translated it into German in 1518Given he was talking to the clerics, it was latin, see here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
Luther discoverd the power or the normal peoples language waaay later in his life.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
Luther discoverd the power or the normal peoples language waaay later in his life.
Who was the first important historical figure who owned a cat?
-You do not own a cat: the cat owns you.
Let us get the hierarchy straight. Cats rule - O.K? Dogs have owners, but cats have staff.
The Egyptians understood this. If a house caught fire, they would risk life to save the cats before they would try to save their belongings or even family members. Quite right too.You do not own a cat: the cat owns you.
Let us get the hierarchy straight. Cats rule - O.K? Dogs have owners, but cats have staff.
The Egyptians understood this. If a house caught fire, they would risk life to save the cats before they would try to save their belongings or even family members. Quite right too.It may well have been an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, as they worshipped cats and also used them to keep vermin out of their grain stores.
I read a great story a while back about The Prophet Mohammed and His favourite cat. The Prophet was reading in His garden when His cat came and lay down on the foot of The Prophet's robe which was on the ground. Much later on, The Prophet had to go into His house for supper, but the cat was still asleep. The Prophet is said to have cut away that part of His robe in order not to disturb the sleeping animal.
My choice would be the renowned Flemish Chemist Sir Sidney Fudd whose pet cat Spunky helped him discover one of the eternal principals of life. "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
The only actual name that comes to mind is Dick Whittington (c. 1354鈥?423). There must be plenty of other historical people who had cats.
I quite agree, Michael B!
I was thinking of the ancient pharoahs but Michael is quite correct in what he says. The cat stays with you because it wants to.
That would be Claudia Octavia, Nero's wife, who owned a pair of leopards.
some Pharaoh
Let us get the hierarchy straight. Cats rule - O.K? Dogs have owners, but cats have staff.
The Egyptians understood this. If a house caught fire, they would risk life to save the cats before they would try to save their belongings or even family members. Quite right too.You do not own a cat: the cat owns you.
Let us get the hierarchy straight. Cats rule - O.K? Dogs have owners, but cats have staff.
The Egyptians understood this. If a house caught fire, they would risk life to save the cats before they would try to save their belongings or even family members. Quite right too.It may well have been an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, as they worshipped cats and also used them to keep vermin out of their grain stores.
I read a great story a while back about The Prophet Mohammed and His favourite cat. The Prophet was reading in His garden when His cat came and lay down on the foot of The Prophet's robe which was on the ground. Much later on, The Prophet had to go into His house for supper, but the cat was still asleep. The Prophet is said to have cut away that part of His robe in order not to disturb the sleeping animal.
My choice would be the renowned Flemish Chemist Sir Sidney Fudd whose pet cat Spunky helped him discover one of the eternal principals of life. "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
The only actual name that comes to mind is Dick Whittington (c. 1354鈥?423). There must be plenty of other historical people who had cats.
I quite agree, Michael B!
I was thinking of the ancient pharoahs but Michael is quite correct in what he says. The cat stays with you because it wants to.
That would be Claudia Octavia, Nero's wife, who owned a pair of leopards.
some Pharaoh
Why diverse natural resources in different regions in the country?
-You are far better off to post this under 'geology'.
Different rock formations with different mineral content have different histories, of which geologists have a far better understanding than do historians.
It has to deal with sedimentary rocks, igneous rocks and compaction. There are aggregate rocks as well.
Some formations got moved around and even formed by compaction due to glaciation. Glaciation ploughed up some rock formations in such ways as to make mineral extraction easier for humans while sometimes glaciation ploughed mineral deposits deeper into the crust of the earth making it more difficult to extract/mine.
Sedimentary rocks first appear in water courses and are usually fragile.
Igneous rocks are formed by heat - volcanic activity.
Compacted rock formation is the result of what we call 'petrification'. There are stages. Coal, for example, is the result of 'petrification' but the process is incomplete and thus humans extracting this 'mineral' can burn it as a fuel.
Aggregate rocks are sort of the 'mutts' in the group.Resources are formed over thousands to millions of years of processes deep within the earth. Volcanic eruptions, movements in the earths crust, etc. can bring all these natural resources to the surface of the earth, making them more accessible for us to remove.
I think the key term is 'natural'; the resources are where they happen to be naturally.
Different rock formations with different mineral content have different histories, of which geologists have a far better understanding than do historians.
It has to deal with sedimentary rocks, igneous rocks and compaction. There are aggregate rocks as well.
Some formations got moved around and even formed by compaction due to glaciation. Glaciation ploughed up some rock formations in such ways as to make mineral extraction easier for humans while sometimes glaciation ploughed mineral deposits deeper into the crust of the earth making it more difficult to extract/mine.
Sedimentary rocks first appear in water courses and are usually fragile.
Igneous rocks are formed by heat - volcanic activity.
Compacted rock formation is the result of what we call 'petrification'. There are stages. Coal, for example, is the result of 'petrification' but the process is incomplete and thus humans extracting this 'mineral' can burn it as a fuel.
Aggregate rocks are sort of the 'mutts' in the group.Resources are formed over thousands to millions of years of processes deep within the earth. Volcanic eruptions, movements in the earths crust, etc. can bring all these natural resources to the surface of the earth, making them more accessible for us to remove.
I think the key term is 'natural'; the resources are where they happen to be naturally.
Did people originally come from Africa and Australia?
-I'm asking this question because I was watching the tv and this professor dude was talking about Mungo man and Mungo women found in Australia! He said that they were over 40,000 years old and they are different because they share no DNA thing with any Africa thing? How comeWhy are you even comparing Australia to Africa? I don't understand the connection. Australia was originally used by the English and others as a prison basically. You sent criminals there. I am most certainly not saying that there couldn't have been native people, as I am part Australian and they are a wonderful people. My Aunt and one of my Uncle's were born there and came over to the US with my Grandma when she got remarried, to my Grandfather. But what Africa has to do with Australia...??
Africa...some of the oldest discovery of human life made in South-Africa in the cradle of human kind.
"they are different because they share no DNA thing with any Africa thing?"
I hadn't realized Africans were referred to as 'things'.
Mungo remains prove that all people did not originate from Africa. There are still too many gaps in our knowledge to have more answers than that unfortunately.
africa australia java and china, 4 at least.
Africa...some of the oldest discovery of human life made in South-Africa in the cradle of human kind.
"they are different because they share no DNA thing with any Africa thing?"
I hadn't realized Africans were referred to as 'things'.
Mungo remains prove that all people did not originate from Africa. There are still too many gaps in our knowledge to have more answers than that unfortunately.
africa australia java and china, 4 at least.
What was the name of those coloured sophisticated 1970s ciggerettes?
-The colours were blue green etc and were quite long and trendy for that time.Thankyou for your time.They were/are Nat Shermans Fantasia:
http://www.natsherman.com/
Edit: Harsh, nasty British/Russian tobacco? Perhaps in the U.K. but never in the U.S.!
Cocktail Sobranie. They had gold tips.We thought we were truly sophisticated smoking them!
sobranie cocktail cigarettes
Sherman
sobranie continental
http://www.natsherman.com/
Edit: Harsh, nasty British/Russian tobacco? Perhaps in the U.K. but never in the U.S.!
Cocktail Sobranie. They had gold tips.We thought we were truly sophisticated smoking them!
sobranie cocktail cigarettes
Sherman
sobranie continental
Which of the following was NOT one of the ways in which the Mayans manipulated their land to farm?
-They drained swamps?
They built elevated fields?
They built berms along rivers?
They terraced hillsides?Hillsides? There are not many hills in their geographical location so I would have to go with terraced hillsides despite what any book has to say. They wouldn't necessarily need to build elevated fields, and in a sense their fields would be "elevated" if they were on hillsides, but I understand old farming methods.
bermss
They built elevated fields?
They built berms along rivers?
They terraced hillsides?Hillsides? There are not many hills in their geographical location so I would have to go with terraced hillsides despite what any book has to say. They wouldn't necessarily need to build elevated fields, and in a sense their fields would be "elevated" if they were on hillsides, but I understand old farming methods.
bermss
How did the second world war turned global?
-From alliances, and invasion. Germany and Japan were expanding their territory by taking them from others therefore causing war, and those countries have alliances with other countries. Neutral countries turned to allies because they were attacked.To start with it was global; can't be anything else.
Tagging them 'global', perhaps you intended to distinguish it from 'European'. Don't forget the fact that all countries which are 'Combatants' ('Allied' called 'Axis' belligerents while 'Axis' called the 'Allied' belligerents; but both of them were belligerents without nit-picking) in the war have global 'Empires' spread all over habitable continents. A few exceptions like 'Bulgaria' that has no empire, don't alter the picture. With all of their 'Colonies' joining the war on the side of their respective Imperial European countries (do they have any alternative, being suppressed colonies?) the second world war turned global. Even the League (of Nations) never accorded them the status of a 'Country' on any of the Colonies and I don't prefer to use the emotion-filled, wispy word like 'Nation' that is pliable in definition. The war "has to be global".
Well, you may differ from me. If so please come out with your own version that should unambiguously and clearly contradict what I stated.
The next chapter is even more noteworthy. Indonesia & Indo-China were occupied by the rival (axis) Imperial power, Japan that even boasted that it has "delivered" them both from their European Imperialists. In essence Imperialists were the same whether European or Asian. These two Indos remained outside the ambit of their erst-while Imperial yoke. Yet in the case of Indo-China (Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) another great country that usually boasted of laying its foundation of 'nationhood' as 'Vanquisher of an Empire', stepped into the French shoes or whatever is left of them (the French forces under siege in Dien Bien Phu were starved to the extreme, to eat their own shoes stewed) and the bloody war lasted another three generations. It all made Imperialism fizzle out totally over a period(again globally) and I need'nt mention Cold War.
I must say that the war (WW II) was the start of everything being made 'global' (the egg-heads prefer to call it 'international').
it was a chain of events which led it to become a global war
first it was the guarantees given by england and france to poland ,which caused them to declare war on germany when they attacked poland
hitler had two allies ,italy and japan ------italy attacked north africa ,and japan attacked all over asia
and later japan attacked usa [pearl harbour] -----bringing usa in to battle
hitler attacked the russians by launching an operation called barbarossa
later the countries of the british empire too helped Britain in ww2 [india was under the empire so it had to help Britain in ww2]
russia helped Yugoslavia under marshall tito in ww2 ,to fight hitler
canada fought on the side of the allies
etc etc etc
the chain of security alliances between countries and attacks on each other ,caused the war to become a global war
just my view
good luck
Tagging them 'global', perhaps you intended to distinguish it from 'European'. Don't forget the fact that all countries which are 'Combatants' ('Allied' called 'Axis' belligerents while 'Axis' called the 'Allied' belligerents; but both of them were belligerents without nit-picking) in the war have global 'Empires' spread all over habitable continents. A few exceptions like 'Bulgaria' that has no empire, don't alter the picture. With all of their 'Colonies' joining the war on the side of their respective Imperial European countries (do they have any alternative, being suppressed colonies?) the second world war turned global. Even the League (of Nations) never accorded them the status of a 'Country' on any of the Colonies and I don't prefer to use the emotion-filled, wispy word like 'Nation' that is pliable in definition. The war "has to be global".
Well, you may differ from me. If so please come out with your own version that should unambiguously and clearly contradict what I stated.
The next chapter is even more noteworthy. Indonesia & Indo-China were occupied by the rival (axis) Imperial power, Japan that even boasted that it has "delivered" them both from their European Imperialists. In essence Imperialists were the same whether European or Asian. These two Indos remained outside the ambit of their erst-while Imperial yoke. Yet in the case of Indo-China (Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) another great country that usually boasted of laying its foundation of 'nationhood' as 'Vanquisher of an Empire', stepped into the French shoes or whatever is left of them (the French forces under siege in Dien Bien Phu were starved to the extreme, to eat their own shoes stewed) and the bloody war lasted another three generations. It all made Imperialism fizzle out totally over a period(again globally) and I need'nt mention Cold War.
I must say that the war (WW II) was the start of everything being made 'global' (the egg-heads prefer to call it 'international').
it was a chain of events which led it to become a global war
first it was the guarantees given by england and france to poland ,which caused them to declare war on germany when they attacked poland
hitler had two allies ,italy and japan ------italy attacked north africa ,and japan attacked all over asia
and later japan attacked usa [pearl harbour] -----bringing usa in to battle
hitler attacked the russians by launching an operation called barbarossa
later the countries of the british empire too helped Britain in ww2 [india was under the empire so it had to help Britain in ww2]
russia helped Yugoslavia under marshall tito in ww2 ,to fight hitler
canada fought on the side of the allies
etc etc etc
the chain of security alliances between countries and attacks on each other ,caused the war to become a global war
just my view
good luck
订阅：
博文 (Atom)