Chaparral is a type of grassland T or F

Final answer:

The phrase "brother will slay brother" signifies betrayal and conflict within familial relationships, drawing on themes of fratricide and civil unrest found in historical and literary contexts.

Explanation:

The lyric "brother will slay brother" suggests a range of meanings, typically involving conflict and betrayal within what should be a close, protective relationship. This phrase often signifies the worst kinds of treachery or tragedy, echoing historical and literary themes such as fratricide, civil war, and the breakdown of familial ties. It suggests that the bond of brotherhood, which is supposed to underpin trust and mutual support, will instead lead to conflict and violence.

References to such conflict can be found in both historical and religious texts, where the theme of brotherly conflict represents moral and social decay or is used to illustrate the consequences of sin and betrayal. For example, MT 10:21 and EX 32:27 from the Bible discuss the idea of brother turning against brother in both literal and metaphorical senses, indicating deep societal or personal crises. Furthermore, these themes are prominent in tragedies and myths, such as the narrative of Orestes and Clytemnestra, or Antigone's brothers, where familial conflicts result in death and despair.

In summary, "brother will slay brother" can be interpreted as an expression of internal strife and rupture within a community or family, pointing towards the broader concepts of betrayal, sin, and the inevitable consequences of such actions.

The lawlessness of the following is not among the natural rights discussed by John Locke. The correct option is C.

Despite being independent and equal, Locke thought that in a natural state, mankind observed the laws of nature. He thought that nature was a calm place to be.

Lawlessness is not included in John Locke's discussion of natural rights because it is not a right. Instead, Locke thought that the state of nature, which he defined as an ideal condition devoid of both a government and rules, was one that included freedom and equality but also uncertainty and the possibility of violence.

People have a natural right to safeguard their life, liberty, and property in this state of nature, but they do not have the freedom to act however they like without respect for the rights of others.

Thus, the ideal selection is option C.

Learn more about John Locke here:

https://brainly.com/question/13346823

#SPJ3

Census.gov  reported  population density  for Arizona in 2007 at  57 people/square mile, Wyoming at 51.3.. Other records show 0-2 people/square mile including  Nevada and Oklahoma.   With that very minimal rates as reference,  we can conclude that there is  zero population density  in those 4 cities  in 1890. 

The most accurate answer describing how early explorers and Native Americans used natural resources in America is option B: "Native Americans respected their land and resources, and early explorers used them to make a profit."

Native American societies had longstanding and intricate relationships with their environments, characterized by a deep reverence for nature and a sustainable approach to resource use. They practiced methods such as crop rotation, controlled burning, and selective hunting to maintain ecological balance and ensure the longevity of their resources. Additionally, they often viewed land as communal rather than private property, which influenced their approach to resource management.

In contrast, early European explorers and settlers, driven by profit motives and colonial expansion, often exploited natural resources for economic gain. They engaged in activities such as clear-cutting forests, mining minerals, and overhunting wildlife without regard for the long-term consequences on the environment or Indigenous populations. The primary aim of early explorers was to extract valuable resources to send back to Europe or to establish profitable ventures in the New World.

While it's true that early explorers brought resources with them and introduced new crops to America, their overall impact on the land was marked by exploitation rather than conservation. Native Americans, on the other hand, had a more sustainable and harmonious relationship with their surroundings, utilizing resources in ways that supported their communities without causing long-term ecological harm.

In summary, Native Americans respected and lived in harmony with their land, while early explorers exploited natural resources for profit, often at the expense of environmental sustainability and Indigenous well-being.

The complete question is:

Which answer best describes how early explorers and Native Americans used natural resources in America?

A. Early explorers taught Native Americans ways to help protect their land and resources.

B. Native Americans respected their land and resources, and early explorers used them to make profit.

C. Early explorers brought resources they needed to survive in America, while Native Americans lived off the land.

D. Native Americans overhunted the land, while early explorers used the land to grow different types of crops.

Answer:

Explanation:

A historian would be the most likely person to analyze a tablet with cuneiform to determine what goods were traded by the merchants.  

Native American reservations in the west were shaped by a variety of environmental, cultural, and economic factors. These included settlers' encroachment leading to the depletion of natural resources, legislative policies hindering economic growth, and cultural shifts through forced assimilation practices. Changes in policy based on the desires of incoming settlers, and ongoing socioeconomic challenges have continued to affect these tribal communities.

The environmental, cultural, and economic factors that influenced Native American reservations in the west were driven by settler encroachment, governmental policies, and evolving socio-economic dynamics. Environmental factors included depletion of natural resources and shifting ecosystems brought by western settlers and their activities. Economically, legislation such as the Nonintercourse Act sections of the Trade and Intercourse Acts restricted economic development on reservations, thwarting their industrial growth. Culturally, there were efforts to assimilate Native Americans through various means, including forcing children into boarding schools to align them with Western traditions. In effect, reservations were subject to multiple waves of dispossession and degradation, which subsequently sparked changes in tribal culture and identity.

Colonizing powers, such as the Spanish, attempted to establish economies that exported wealth and materials to their home countries. Infrastructure they built intentionally depleted local habitats, depriving Indigenous peoples of essential resources within their lands. In response to resistance, brutality ensued against Indigenous communities and families.

Furthermore, policy changes were often driven by the waves of European immigrants seeking land for settlement. What was initially promised to Native tribes as possession in perpetuity was gradually taken away when these land spaces became desirable for white settlements.

Simultaneously, Native Americans grappled with matter of identity, both social and political, on the reservations. The continuous stream of challenges, including poverty due to limited employment opportunities, has led to ongoing debates about the future of these tribes. Meanwhile, some tribes have managed to improve their conditions through effective management of resources like federal education grants.

https://brainly.com/question/20337352

#SPJ11

Answer:

Hello! The correct answer is to discuss their grievances with the British government.

Explanation:

I am just confirming!

The pattern of change in the Latin American countries was Colonists fought for and gained independence from their colonial rulers and within a century abolished slavery.

This was the fight for freedom from the colonial masters that took over the governance of the Latin American countries.

The colonial masters were the Spanish and the Portuguese Europeans in the area.

Read more on independence here:

https://brainly.com/question/9515546

#SPJ2

Final answer:

The New England colonies had a diverse economy with shipbuilding, fishing, and crafts due to the poor farming conditions, while the southern colonies relied on plantation-based agriculture with crops like tobacco and rice, heavily dependent on slave labor.

Explanation:

The economy of the New England colonies differed significantly from that of the southern colonies. In New England, the harsh climate and rocky soil made large-scale farming difficult, leading to a more diversified economy including shipbuilding, fishing, and whaling. The region's economy also benefited from industry and crafts such as printing, carpentry, and weaving. In contrast, the southern colonies developed an agricultural economy based on staple crops like tobacco in the Chesapeake colonies and rice and indigo in South Carolina and Georgia, which were labor-intensive and heavily reliant on slave labor.

New England's economy was also characterized by education and an industrious work ethic, influenced by Puritan beliefs. The southern colonies, with longer growing seasons and fertile lands, established plantation-style agriculture, supported by slave labor, with a strong focus on export crops. Economic diversity in the workforce was more pronounced in New England, where slaves and free persons engaged in various crafts, while in the South, slaves primarily worked on large agricultural units.

The Black Codes restricted freed men and women from bearing arms or voting, serving on juries, and engaging in interracial marriage.

The Black Codes were restrictive laws designed to limit the freedom of African Americans and ensure their availability as a cheap labor force after slavery was abolished during the U.S. Reconstruction period. Specifically, three things that freed men and women were not allowed to do according to the Black Codes included:

In addition to these prohibitions, freed people were also restricted from owning property except in designated areas, could not mingle with whites, and had to obtain permission to leave the premises of an employer.

Answer:

this is correct!!

Explanation:

A monopoly is a market dominated by one single firm that manufactured the entire amount that is supplied of a certain product. This firm has a huge bargaining power and is able to fix the market price of its products, consumers can either accept and pay such price or refuse to purchase it. Therefore, monopolies face a very steep and inelastic demand curve.

Monopolistic competition is a market structure constituted by a large number of different firms that supply a product that is essentially the same (products that have certain differences but can be used to satisfy the same need). These firms are not price-takers as they have the power to differentiate their products, so that consumers perceive them in a different and superior manner than the products of the competitors, and hence they would be willing to pay if a higher price is fixed.

In both market structures, the firm has a certain degree of control over the price of the product (although the power is absolute in the case of the monopoly and much sligther in the case of monopolistic competition). Therefore, the main difference is the number of firms operating on each type of market.

A monopoly is an economic scenario with only one provider for a product or service, whereas monopolistic competition involves many providers making unique, slightly different products.

The main difference between a monopoly and monopolistic competition can be defined by the number of firms in the industry and the type of goods produced. A monopoly is an economic structure where there is only one single producer or provider for a particular product or service. This means that this sole firm controls the entire market with no competition.

On the other hand, monopolistic competition is a market structure characterized by many sellers, each producing slightly differentiated products. This means that while there is competition, each firm holds some market power due to the uniqueness of their individual products.

https://brainly.com/question/34200306

#SPJ6

Anti federalists criticized the Constitution as concentrating too much power in the hands of a few.

Further Explanation:

When the delegates at the Constitutional Convention met, one of the biggest issues debated was how much power the federal government would possess.

On one side, you had the federalists. The federalists believed that the federal government should have significantly more power than the state governments. The rationale behind this line of thinking was that when the United States had a government in which states had more power than the federal government (aka the Articles of Confederation) it failed.

On the other hand, you had the anti federalists. Anti federalists felt that the state governments should have more power than the federal government. Anti federalists felt this way due to America's experience as British colonists. One of the most significant reasons behind America's decision to declare independence was the perceived tyranny of the strong central government.

This is why anti federalists worried about the new Constitution. They feared that this constitution gave too much power to the president and Congress.

Learn More:

Constitutional Convention Explanation- https://brainly.com/question/8863425

Key Details:

Topics: American History, American government

Grade Level: 7-12

Keywords: Anti Federalists, Federalists, Constitutional Convention, State government, Federal government

The option (A) is correct. Anti Federalists criticized the Constitution as concentrating too much power in the hands of a few.

Further Explanation:

Anti-Federalist:

Anti-Federalism was a political party which was against the establishment of the USA Constitution. According to Anti-Federalist theory, the creation of the constitution would seize the power of the state government. The major statements made by the anti-federalist are as follows:

• The creation of the constitution would give the monarchy alike powers to the president of USA.

• The constitution would decrease or invalidate state government power.

• The creation of the constitution would give unreasonable powers to the government.

• The creation of the federal government would not be appropriate as citizens of different states would not get access to the government very easily and quickly.

• The creation of the USA constitution would result in the establishment of the Bill of right, which would restrict the liberty of the citizens.

Thus, the anti-federalist oppose the new constitution because it would give many powers to the federal government of the USA.  According to anti-federalist of the constitution, power was in the hand of the few people.

Learn more:

1. Learn more about the Article I

https://brainly.com/question/694199

2. Learn more about the creation of the government  

https://brainly.com/question/9835311

3. Learn more about article II

https://brainly.com/question/6943726

Answer details:  

Grade: Middle School

Subject: History

Chapter: USA constitution  

Keywords: Anti Federalists, criticized, Constitution, Concentrating, much, power, hands, few, granting, power, states, weakening, national, government, guaranteeing, civil liberties, containing, many checks, balances.