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:He saw the superiority of the African continent and a chance for Belgium to dominate world trade.
part a -
Explanation:
The Congo became part of Belgium's attempt to be a dominant country in Europe, and luckily, in the world. Acquired the Congo in 1884, Leopold had amassed a huge personal fortune from the exploitation of Congo's natural resources - at first thanks to the export of ivory, but it did not yield as much as expected. As global demand for rubber exploded, attention turned to the labor-intensive gathering of rubber from plant sap. This process of exploration was followed by violent practices with the natives, with extensive use of beatings, killings, and mutilations when production quotas were not reached.
During the Renaissance many people embraced humanism.
Answer:
There is little doubt that the widespread use of the automobile, especially after 1920, changed the rural and urban landscapes in America. It is overly simplistic to assume, however, that the automobile was the single driving force in the transformation of the countryside or the modernization of cities. In some ways automobile transport was a crucial agent for change, but in other cases it merely accelerated ongoing changes.
In several respects, the automobile made its impact felt first in rural areas where cars were used for touring and recreation on the weekends as opposed to replacing existing transit that brought people to and from work in urban areas. Some of the earliest paved roads were landscaped parkways along scenic routes. Of course, rural people were not always very pleased when urban drivers rutted unpaved roads, kicked up dust, and generally frightened or even injured livestock. Yet, cars potentially could help confront rural problems—isolation, the high cost of transporting farm products, and the labor of farm work. Although farmers may have resisted the automobile at first, by the 1920s per capita automobile ownership favored the rural family. Adoption was uneven in rural areas, however, depending on income, availability of cars, the continuing reliance on horses, and other factors. Automobile manufacturers did not lose sight of this market and courted potential customers with advertisements touting that cars were “Built for Country Roads” or promoting vehicles that would lead to “The Passing of the Horse.”
Explanation:
hope it helps LOLOLOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
