Both, nationalism and Islamism, were ways that were used by the authorities of the newly formed countries for unification and strengthening the position of the nation, and the politicians as well.
Nationalism was based on ethnic level, and it was a way of creating despise, revolt, anger, towards the other nations. It was used as a unification method and for creating a nationalist core, and in this way the authorities were able to create a large mass of people that were willing to fight for their own nation, and had a deep hatred towards the other nations.
Islamism was based on religious level, and it was promoting unification on religious basis, but was also creating lots of hatred and aggression towards other religions. In this way, the authorities were trying to create a strong religious core in the country, but also brotherly alliances with the countries that practice the same religion.
Both, nationalism and Islamism were terrible towards the minorities, and the nationalist were killing and committing genocides on ethnic level, while the Islamist were doing the same but on religious level.
Answer and Explanation:
Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame, in their article “The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation,” defend liberty by the motto of “less are more.”
We are asserting more and more rights without checking out the implementation of previous rights. Asserting more rights and convincing the states to add them in treaties would not lead to more excellent protection of human rights.
The proliferation of rights is more harmful to humans because human rights are not protected fully as we are expanding the number of rights in treaties.
They argued that: “If human rights were a currency, its value would be free fall……..this currency is buy cover for dictatorships ”
Rights of human language have been used to restrict rights. Freedom of religion and expression was a foundation of human rights, but states also restricted those rights in the name of human rights.
To sum up, the proliferation of human rights does not ensure that the rights of humans are being secured. States are not always concerned directly with the welfare of humans but to restrict those rights more. So the proliferation of rights is not fruitful but a dangerous thing.
Answers, with explanations:
written constitution = after unification
- During revolutions in 1848-1849, the Frankfurt Parliament had produced a constitution for a unified Germany, but that move was rejected at the time by the king of Prussia, to whom the constitution was offered.
300 German states = before unification
- The German states had a long history of sovereignty in their individual territories. Unification meant bringing all those states together into one national entity.
trade facilitated in the region = before unification
- The Zollverein, or customs union, was created between the German states in the 1830s. This eliminated customs tariffs between states and was a step that began moving in the direction of unification.
risk of French aggression = before unification
- Germany became a united empire after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Victory over France in that war by the German states operating as a coalition was part of what brought about unification.
boundaries changed by Napoleon = before unification
- When Napoleon conquered territories throughout Europe in the early 1800s, he rearranged borders to enhance his empire's management of conquered territories. In the German states, this made them work together in ways they had not before, and was a catalyst toward desires for unification.
two-house legislature = after unification
- There was a legislature in the North German Confederation (1867-1870), which preceded unification. But that was a single-house (unicameral) parliament, whereas the Reichstag (legislature) of the unified German Empire was bicameral.
The answer is C because in the constitution it allowed the states to choose and make their own laws and slavery was a law that the southerners wanted.
Answer: C. Leasers Decide To Meet At The Consultation.
Explanation: To start with it is best to know when each incident occurred.
A. Texas Troops Take San Antonio - December 1835
B. The Battle Of Gonzales Is Fought - October 2, 1835
C. Leaders Decide To Meet At The Consultation - March 1936
D. William Travis Leads An Insurrection At Anahuac - June 1835
From here you put things in order of occurrence.
D. William Travis first lead an insurrection at Anahuac.
B. Then the Battle of Gonzales occurred.
A. Next Texas troops take over San Antonio.
C. Finally, leaders decide to meet at the Consultation.