Queen Victoria's descendants were the rulers of many nations that were involved with each other in the war.
Explanation:
The rulers of most of the empires of the time had some relation to Queen Victoria by marriage alliance.
This meant that the war was ultimately broken out between relatives who fought against each other, which is of course, common in the time of monarchies as most monarchies were related to one another through marriage.
Queen Victoria's relatives included the royal family of the Austria Hungary empire, The German king and the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, and of course the royal family of England.
Answer:
Bacon's Rebellion was caused by:
A) favoritism and corruption among colonial elites
Explanation:
According to history, "Governor William Berkeley used new trade rules to increase his wealthy friends’ fortunes" while refusing to officially back the usurpation of the land of the friendly natives on the borders of Virginia. These moves angered "Nathaniel Bacon, who had recently arrived in Virginia and was Berkeley’s cousin by marriage." He termed the situation as "the governor’s disloyalty and unfairness."
Then, in 1676, Nathaniel Bacon led Virginia settlers to challenge the authority of Governor William Berkeley as he continued to protect the interests of the native Americans in the western frontier. The Virginia settlers had believed that the western frontier belonged to them and not to the original native Americans whom they regarded as "barbarous heathen." But, Governor William did not want to legitimize their demand with political authority. His stand further infuriated Nathaniel Bacon, who decided to lead an armed rebellion to sack the natives from their land and later against the Governor, following his proscription of the rebellious group.
Edo Castle was like Louis XIV's Versailles, a place of fabulous riches, of unimaginable beauty and luxury. Its mammoth granite battlements and gleaming roofs towered above the great city of Edo, the largest city in the world – which we now call Tokyo.
Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
"What warrant [right] have we to take that land, which is and hath been of long time possessed [by] others . . . ? "That which is common to all is proper to none. [Native Americans] ruleth over many lands without title or property; for they enclose [fence in] no ground, neither have they cattle to maintain it. . . . And why may not Christians have liberty to go and dwell amongst them in their waste[d] lands and woods (leaving them such places as they have [fertilized] for their corn) . . . ? For God hath given to the sons of men a twofold right to the earth; there is a natural right and a civil [political] right. The first right was natural when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased. Then, as men and cattle increased, they appropriated some parcels of ground by enclosing [them as property] . . . And this in time got them a civil right."
Descreva brevemente UM argumento apresentado no trecho.
Answer:
Since Native Americans did not claim their civil rights over the land they inhabit, what counts is the natural right that God gave to all men, so it is justifiable for Christians to own the land together with the natives.
Explanation:
The text shown in the question above was written by John Winthrop, who was part of the English team to be the first settlers of North America and later became governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In this text, Winthrop takes a position on the colonists' dictate to live in America, even though it is a land that already had inhabitants and "owners.
In that text, Winthrop claims that God gave men the natural direction over the land, where any land owned them all. Men, through their activities, assumed civil rights over pieces of land, where they became owners and could prevent anyone other than them from using it. However, Native Americans have never claimed civil rights to their land, which allows natural law to prevail and makes room for good Christians to own it.
The basic concepts of socialism are as follows; the main idea is that people should live in an egalitarian society where everybody would contribute as much as he can and take as much as he needs, this would give us a society where everybody would be equally well off and nobody would have less. Everything would also be state owned - this has been a solution that happened in the past.
In my opinion, pure socialism cannot succeed but perhaps using some things from it could be very beneficial.
