I%26#039;m trying to write a story about a homosexual couple in the southern part of the United States in the 1880s. I wanted to have the younger one%26#039;s brother be involved in the KKK. What I%26#039;m wondering is this:
1. What sort of language was used in this time? I read somewhere that the term gay wasn%26#039;t used until the 1940s; what would they use in the 1880s?
2. Would the guy in the KKK be more likely to get them to go after his brother, the brother%26#039;s older lover, or both? Keep in mind that the brother (and his father) are very into all the KKK %26quot;values%26quot; (the father owned a plantation and slaves before the Civil War).
Any information anyone can give me about the language and/or culture of this time would be greatly appreciated, as would any sites you could give me for future research.
Gay people in 1880 America?
Do this research on Google or one of the other search engines. That way you%26#039;ll know the answers are authentic. Also, it doesn%26#039;t hurt not to be so lazy.
Gay people in 1880 America?
well seeing as the number of %26quot;openly%26quot; homosexual men (I think you mean men, right?) would be damned near nil...
I would guess they were just called %26quot;bachelors%26quot; or if they were fruitsy they%26#039;d probably be called retarded or %26quot;wrong in the head%26quot;
and the Klansmen brother would probably send the Klan after both, but if you want to artistically give him a heart that%26#039;s your prerogative.
do announce when it%26#039;s completed, I%26#039;d love to read it
and I%26#039;d have to add that the history channel will probably be of good use to you =D
Good Luck!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
I dont know if it was a good thing or a bad thing. I have to write an essay addressing this issue. What are your views on it?
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
Sure it was the right thing to do to end the war quickly
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
if the bomb wasn%26#039;t dropped, the allies were getting ready to invade japan. that invasion would of cause much more deaths, and prolonging the war.
Reply:Why Hiroshima? Why worry about that? We killed far more people in the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo, and death by fire bomb is more gruesome and slow than being obliterated suddenly. Was it right? No. Was it necessary? Probably, unless we wanted to do a land invasion of Japan with Russia and fight bloody battles.
Reply:Personally, I believe that he did. I know many people will disagree with me, but I also had to write a paper about it and we had to pick, wither we were for or against it.
He was really left with no other decision. The Japanese had already voiced that they were willing to fight until the death(no surrender) and wouldn%26#039;t be quitting anytime soon. By dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, yes millions of people were killed and it effected another generation, but he saved the lives of millions of American soldiers and ended the war.
Reply:There%26#039;s two answers to this; Yes or No.
Here%26#039;s my answers:
Yes: it allowed Japan to become Democratic after the surrender. It also allowed Japan to become the most developed country in the world today. It was also a easier way than to send so many soldiers to the mainland Japan when Truman knows that a lot of these soldiers would die in the battle for Honshu, Japan.
No: It killed innocent civilians, and spreaded a new disease into the world. It also started the Atomic Age in the world and caused the world to enter the Cold War Era.
Reply:YES!!!!! even though civilians died and all that mumbo jumbo, it ended the war! it saved more lives in the future than it destroyed. the war would have gone on a while longer cause japan had A LOT of islands and land. it would have taken years more to win the war and we had already won in europe.
Reply:It was a good decison because of the following reasons: less loss of American lives, wouldn%26#039;t have to invade Japan, show off military power to Soviet Union(Russia), make Japanese surrender, put immediate end to war, being outnumbered with Japanese bigger military which was 9 million, President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan.
Reply:That is a very tough question that i know Truman wrestled with even after he made it. The US believed that if they had to invade Japan it would have cost a million US casualties. Japanese casualties would have been even more staggering because the Japanese people were willing to give up their lives to save the homeland(They had a very different culture than ours, look at the kamikaze%26#039;s). By dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, millions of lives were saved but a new evil was brought into the world. Truman thought he made the right decision as a lot of other people do. I could not really tell you where i stand on this issue (though of course in hindsight i wish it did not happen) because i think a total naval blockade over Japan would have ended the war (though the reason it was not done was because it would take to long for the Japanese to surrender from the blockade like i think 4-6 years was the estimate) I do believe that the bomb drop on Nagasaki was uncalled for and i fault Truman for that moreso than over Hiroshima. I do believe that Nagasaki was to show the Soviets that we were willing and had a large number of A-Bombs. We wanted to show the world that we were the super-power
Reply:In my opinion, no. It was a bad thing. But I say this with the benefit of over sixty years of hindsight. At the time, it looked like it was justified, because the invasion of Japan was looming, and with it the deaths of US and Japanese troops, as well as Japanese civilians. So, hoping to avoid this, the bombs were dropped. But to me, this was no more than an excuse to use these new weapons, to see what they would do. Europe had been successfully invaded, and Germany had surrendered, so now the entire might of the Allies was concentrated on Japan, so - again in my opinion - the invasion wouldn%26#039;t have been as nasty or as prolonged as was claimed. The war would have gone on for a few more months, but Japan was on the ropes, and wouldn%26#039;t have lasted long. The %26quot;conventional%26quot; bombings had reduced most Japanese cities to ashes, and the military was just about finished. So I believe that this justification for using the bomb is mere propaganda - and in war, the victors write the history books. The use of the atomic bomb - and, remember, I%26#039;m saying this with sixty years worth of history to draw upon - was a terrible thing, for these reasons. (1). People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL suffering from the effects of the bombings - there is an increased level of leukemia, other cancers and birth defects amongst the populations of those cities. What do the people there today have to do with the war? (2). It let the %26quot;nuclear genie%26quot; out of the bottle, with the consequence that the world has never been safe since - for the first time in human history, we have the ability to obliterate all life on the planet, many times over. President Truman made a momentous decision when he authorised the use of these dreadful weapons, in my opinion the most important decision ever made by an American President. But he thought he was doing the right thing at the time. (Does that sound like President Bush and his WMDs? And this is one of the main objections I have to nuclear weapons - the %26quot;good guys%26quot; are allowed to have them, while the %26quot;bad guys%26quot; aren%26#039;t.
Iraq was invaded, and hundreds of thousands of people killed; Iran and North Korea are threatened with invasion, all so they can%26#039;t have these weapons. But the only country that has used the damned things in war is the good old US of A.
Why shouldn%26#039;t the bad guys have them? Nobody should have them). I know that little diatribe had nothing to do with your question, but it kinda puts things into perspective.
Here is an excellent website for you to have a look at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over...
Cheers!
Reply:Yes, it was the right decision for the times. The planned invasion of Japan would have produced roughly one million US casualties by all estimates. Even more for the Japanese with their %26quot;fight to the end%26quot; mentality. So, likely the invasion would have resulted in millions of dead, plus the additional monetary costs of fighting the war for another 6-12 months.
People that object to the use of the A-bomb against Japan often don%26#039;t understand the full picture, or they have a rigid, emotional objection to the Bomb itself.
Reply:I think he made the right decision. It saved lives in the long
run. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. It was not in their military makeup. Even after they saw the horrible
destruction of Hiroshama they allowed another bomb to be
dropped on Nagasaki before they came to their senses.
Besides which my brothers, my cousins and myself wouldn%26#039;t have been here. my father and my uncles were all POWs in Japanese concentration camps and they would have died before any convention land war would have ended due to
starvation and torture.
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
Sure it was the right thing to do to end the war quickly
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
if the bomb wasn%26#039;t dropped, the allies were getting ready to invade japan. that invasion would of cause much more deaths, and prolonging the war.
Reply:Why Hiroshima? Why worry about that? We killed far more people in the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo, and death by fire bomb is more gruesome and slow than being obliterated suddenly. Was it right? No. Was it necessary? Probably, unless we wanted to do a land invasion of Japan with Russia and fight bloody battles.
Reply:Personally, I believe that he did. I know many people will disagree with me, but I also had to write a paper about it and we had to pick, wither we were for or against it.
He was really left with no other decision. The Japanese had already voiced that they were willing to fight until the death(no surrender) and wouldn%26#039;t be quitting anytime soon. By dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, yes millions of people were killed and it effected another generation, but he saved the lives of millions of American soldiers and ended the war.
Reply:There%26#039;s two answers to this; Yes or No.
Here%26#039;s my answers:
Yes: it allowed Japan to become Democratic after the surrender. It also allowed Japan to become the most developed country in the world today. It was also a easier way than to send so many soldiers to the mainland Japan when Truman knows that a lot of these soldiers would die in the battle for Honshu, Japan.
No: It killed innocent civilians, and spreaded a new disease into the world. It also started the Atomic Age in the world and caused the world to enter the Cold War Era.
Reply:YES!!!!! even though civilians died and all that mumbo jumbo, it ended the war! it saved more lives in the future than it destroyed. the war would have gone on a while longer cause japan had A LOT of islands and land. it would have taken years more to win the war and we had already won in europe.
Reply:It was a good decison because of the following reasons: less loss of American lives, wouldn%26#039;t have to invade Japan, show off military power to Soviet Union(Russia), make Japanese surrender, put immediate end to war, being outnumbered with Japanese bigger military which was 9 million, President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan.
Reply:That is a very tough question that i know Truman wrestled with even after he made it. The US believed that if they had to invade Japan it would have cost a million US casualties. Japanese casualties would have been even more staggering because the Japanese people were willing to give up their lives to save the homeland(They had a very different culture than ours, look at the kamikaze%26#039;s). By dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, millions of lives were saved but a new evil was brought into the world. Truman thought he made the right decision as a lot of other people do. I could not really tell you where i stand on this issue (though of course in hindsight i wish it did not happen) because i think a total naval blockade over Japan would have ended the war (though the reason it was not done was because it would take to long for the Japanese to surrender from the blockade like i think 4-6 years was the estimate) I do believe that the bomb drop on Nagasaki was uncalled for and i fault Truman for that moreso than over Hiroshima. I do believe that Nagasaki was to show the Soviets that we were willing and had a large number of A-Bombs. We wanted to show the world that we were the super-power
Reply:In my opinion, no. It was a bad thing. But I say this with the benefit of over sixty years of hindsight. At the time, it looked like it was justified, because the invasion of Japan was looming, and with it the deaths of US and Japanese troops, as well as Japanese civilians. So, hoping to avoid this, the bombs were dropped. But to me, this was no more than an excuse to use these new weapons, to see what they would do. Europe had been successfully invaded, and Germany had surrendered, so now the entire might of the Allies was concentrated on Japan, so - again in my opinion - the invasion wouldn%26#039;t have been as nasty or as prolonged as was claimed. The war would have gone on for a few more months, but Japan was on the ropes, and wouldn%26#039;t have lasted long. The %26quot;conventional%26quot; bombings had reduced most Japanese cities to ashes, and the military was just about finished. So I believe that this justification for using the bomb is mere propaganda - and in war, the victors write the history books. The use of the atomic bomb - and, remember, I%26#039;m saying this with sixty years worth of history to draw upon - was a terrible thing, for these reasons. (1). People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL suffering from the effects of the bombings - there is an increased level of leukemia, other cancers and birth defects amongst the populations of those cities. What do the people there today have to do with the war? (2). It let the %26quot;nuclear genie%26quot; out of the bottle, with the consequence that the world has never been safe since - for the first time in human history, we have the ability to obliterate all life on the planet, many times over. President Truman made a momentous decision when he authorised the use of these dreadful weapons, in my opinion the most important decision ever made by an American President. But he thought he was doing the right thing at the time. (Does that sound like President Bush and his WMDs? And this is one of the main objections I have to nuclear weapons - the %26quot;good guys%26quot; are allowed to have them, while the %26quot;bad guys%26quot; aren%26#039;t.
Iraq was invaded, and hundreds of thousands of people killed; Iran and North Korea are threatened with invasion, all so they can%26#039;t have these weapons. But the only country that has used the damned things in war is the good old US of A.
Why shouldn%26#039;t the bad guys have them? Nobody should have them). I know that little diatribe had nothing to do with your question, but it kinda puts things into perspective.
Here is an excellent website for you to have a look at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over...
Cheers!
Reply:Yes, it was the right decision for the times. The planned invasion of Japan would have produced roughly one million US casualties by all estimates. Even more for the Japanese with their %26quot;fight to the end%26quot; mentality. So, likely the invasion would have resulted in millions of dead, plus the additional monetary costs of fighting the war for another 6-12 months.
People that object to the use of the A-bomb against Japan often don%26#039;t understand the full picture, or they have a rigid, emotional objection to the Bomb itself.
Reply:I think he made the right decision. It saved lives in the long
run. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. It was not in their military makeup. Even after they saw the horrible
destruction of Hiroshama they allowed another bomb to be
dropped on Nagasaki before they came to their senses.
Besides which my brothers, my cousins and myself wouldn%26#039;t have been here. my father and my uncles were all POWs in Japanese concentration camps and they would have died before any convention land war would have ended due to
starvation and torture.
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
women and what they did to be considered in playing an important place or role in american history between 1800-1860
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of uncle tom%26#039;s cabin. This book made many people oppose slavery and in a way helped bring about the Civil War.
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
??
Reply:Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (Fought for women%26#039;s rights; Seneca Falls Convetion 1848)
Harriet Beecher Stowe (Wrote Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin)
Soujourner Truth (Abolitionist, spoke at the Seneca Falls Convention. She gave a famous speech there, asking %26quot;Ain%26#039;t I a Woman?%26quot;)
Elizabeth Blackwell (First woman physicians in the US)
Dolley Madison (Wife of 4th President James Madison--influential hostess in Washington, saved painting of George Washington when the British burned the White House in 1814)
Reply:Many women in the early 19th century were very active in the Abolitionist movement. The first female anti-slavery lecturers in the USA were Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who were also early feminists. When Angelina married another anti-slavery lecturer, Theodore Weld, in 18 38, the word %26#039;obey%26#039; was omitted from the marriage service. Many women active in the abolitionist movement subsequently became active in the campaign for women%26#039;s suffrage.
In 1833, Prudence Crandall, a schoolteacher, made a brave attempt to open a school for coloured girls in Canterbury, with the aim of giving them the same genteel education available to white girls. Local residents were outraged, and Crandall and her pupils were subject to torrades of abuse, intimidation and actual violence. the school was eventually destroyed by rioters. After the war, Connecticut voted to give its black citizens the right to vote, with Canterbury leading the way. Crandall had not been able to carry through her plan to educate young black women, but as her old friend Samuel May said, she had been succesful in teaching her neighbours.
In 1833, Lydia Maria Child published a book called An Appeal In Favour of That Class of Americans Called Africans. One of the first antislavery books to be published in America, it was also one of the boldest, arguing that the races should be able to mix freely when traveling, at the theatre, in church, and when choosing marital partners. Child, along with the Grimke sisters, was unusual even among abolitonists in her belief in the integration and equality of the races.
It could be very dangerous being an abolitonist, between 1834 and 1837, there were at least 157 mob anti-abolition actions in the north. At one Boston aboltionist meeting where the meeting provoked a riot, a woman called Maria Weston Chapman led the audinece out through the angry mob in pairs, black and white together. %26quot;If this is the last bulwark of freedom, we may as well die here as anywhere%26quot; she said.
1848 was the year Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organised the Seneca Falls Convention to present their case for women%26#039;s rights. elizabeth Cady Stanton and susan B. Antony were leaders of the women%26#039;s rights movements throughout the rest of the 19th century. Lucy Stone, another influential early feminist, was also a speaker for the anti-slavery society, she travelled the country during the early 1850s, often swaying hostile audiences with her eloquence.
Dorothea Dix was an important social reformer who improved the appalling conditions of mental patients in the USA during the 1840s. Her priorities were to alleviate conditons for the mentally ill by having instituitons for them seperate from criminals and by having ropes and chains removed. She played a direct role in the founding of 32 mental hospitals and was inspirational in founding many others. She called New jersey%26#039;s first mental hospital at Trenton %26quot;my firstborn child.%26quot;
In 1849, the remarkable Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery, and returned many times to the south to rescue fellow slaves. She was an expert at disguise and at putting her pursuers off the scent. She appeared as an old woman, or a vagabond, or a mentally disturbed man. On one occasion, when she saw a former owner coming towards her she loosed several chickens at a market and pretended to be chasing after them as she scurried by unnnoticed. Another time, when she realised she had been tracked to a railroad station, she calmly boarded a southbound train, guessing correctly that no one would suspect a black woman traveling deeper into slave territory. %26quot;I was the conductor of the underground railway for eight years and I can say what most conductors can%26#039;t say - I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger%26quot; she said.
1850 was the year Elizabeth Blackwell became the first American woman to qualify as a doctor at an American medical school. it was also the year in which Harriet Beecher Stowe published %26#039;Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin%26#039; probably the most influential novel of the 19th century. it%26#039;s impact on the anti-slavery campaign was huge.
Although male ex-slaves were common on the lecture trail, Sojourner Truth was the only female ex-slave who pursued a career as a public speaker. Tall, with a low, powerful voice, she became celebrated for her direct and colourful language. Addressing a women%26#039;s rights convention in Ohio, she said %26quot;I have heard much about the sexes being equal. I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get at it. I am as strong as any man that is now. As for intellect, all I can say is, if a woman have a pint and a man a quart - why can%26#039;t she have her little pint full?%26quot;
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of uncle tom%26#039;s cabin. This book made many people oppose slavery and in a way helped bring about the Civil War.
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
??
Reply:Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (Fought for women%26#039;s rights; Seneca Falls Convetion 1848)
Harriet Beecher Stowe (Wrote Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin)
Soujourner Truth (Abolitionist, spoke at the Seneca Falls Convention. She gave a famous speech there, asking %26quot;Ain%26#039;t I a Woman?%26quot;)
Elizabeth Blackwell (First woman physicians in the US)
Dolley Madison (Wife of 4th President James Madison--influential hostess in Washington, saved painting of George Washington when the British burned the White House in 1814)
Reply:Many women in the early 19th century were very active in the Abolitionist movement. The first female anti-slavery lecturers in the USA were Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who were also early feminists. When Angelina married another anti-slavery lecturer, Theodore Weld, in 18 38, the word %26#039;obey%26#039; was omitted from the marriage service. Many women active in the abolitionist movement subsequently became active in the campaign for women%26#039;s suffrage.
In 1833, Prudence Crandall, a schoolteacher, made a brave attempt to open a school for coloured girls in Canterbury, with the aim of giving them the same genteel education available to white girls. Local residents were outraged, and Crandall and her pupils were subject to torrades of abuse, intimidation and actual violence. the school was eventually destroyed by rioters. After the war, Connecticut voted to give its black citizens the right to vote, with Canterbury leading the way. Crandall had not been able to carry through her plan to educate young black women, but as her old friend Samuel May said, she had been succesful in teaching her neighbours.
In 1833, Lydia Maria Child published a book called An Appeal In Favour of That Class of Americans Called Africans. One of the first antislavery books to be published in America, it was also one of the boldest, arguing that the races should be able to mix freely when traveling, at the theatre, in church, and when choosing marital partners. Child, along with the Grimke sisters, was unusual even among abolitonists in her belief in the integration and equality of the races.
It could be very dangerous being an abolitonist, between 1834 and 1837, there were at least 157 mob anti-abolition actions in the north. At one Boston aboltionist meeting where the meeting provoked a riot, a woman called Maria Weston Chapman led the audinece out through the angry mob in pairs, black and white together. %26quot;If this is the last bulwark of freedom, we may as well die here as anywhere%26quot; she said.
1848 was the year Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organised the Seneca Falls Convention to present their case for women%26#039;s rights. elizabeth Cady Stanton and susan B. Antony were leaders of the women%26#039;s rights movements throughout the rest of the 19th century. Lucy Stone, another influential early feminist, was also a speaker for the anti-slavery society, she travelled the country during the early 1850s, often swaying hostile audiences with her eloquence.
Dorothea Dix was an important social reformer who improved the appalling conditions of mental patients in the USA during the 1840s. Her priorities were to alleviate conditons for the mentally ill by having instituitons for them seperate from criminals and by having ropes and chains removed. She played a direct role in the founding of 32 mental hospitals and was inspirational in founding many others. She called New jersey%26#039;s first mental hospital at Trenton %26quot;my firstborn child.%26quot;
In 1849, the remarkable Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery, and returned many times to the south to rescue fellow slaves. She was an expert at disguise and at putting her pursuers off the scent. She appeared as an old woman, or a vagabond, or a mentally disturbed man. On one occasion, when she saw a former owner coming towards her she loosed several chickens at a market and pretended to be chasing after them as she scurried by unnnoticed. Another time, when she realised she had been tracked to a railroad station, she calmly boarded a southbound train, guessing correctly that no one would suspect a black woman traveling deeper into slave territory. %26quot;I was the conductor of the underground railway for eight years and I can say what most conductors can%26#039;t say - I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger%26quot; she said.
1850 was the year Elizabeth Blackwell became the first American woman to qualify as a doctor at an American medical school. it was also the year in which Harriet Beecher Stowe published %26#039;Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin%26#039; probably the most influential novel of the 19th century. it%26#039;s impact on the anti-slavery campaign was huge.
Although male ex-slaves were common on the lecture trail, Sojourner Truth was the only female ex-slave who pursued a career as a public speaker. Tall, with a low, powerful voice, she became celebrated for her direct and colourful language. Addressing a women%26#039;s rights convention in Ohio, she said %26quot;I have heard much about the sexes being equal. I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get at it. I am as strong as any man that is now. As for intellect, all I can say is, if a woman have a pint and a man a quart - why can%26#039;t she have her little pint full?%26quot;
Duriong the late 1800's and early 1900's, millions of people immigrated to the United States.?
Identify and Explain several reasons people left their homelands to move to the United States.
Duriong the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s, millions of people immigrated to the United States.?
This large immigration was due to the Industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a result of the Agricultural revolution which created new styles of Farming which led to a greater food supply. Since the food supply was greater, people lived longer and had more children. The increase in population created a work force that needed jobs. This helped lead to the industrial revolution. The Industrial revolution led to urbanization. The Industrial revolution also led to a spark of medical revolution which created medicines and vaccines which kept people alive longer. So more people were being born, and they were living longer, so this led to overpopulation. During this time it was the age of Imperialism, this gave the over crowded countries a place to send people and help control the population. Some of these people, especialy from western Europe immigrated to the United states were there was open land that was easily affordable and so they immigrated. And this is what led to the
spike in Immigration in the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s.
Duriong the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s, millions of people immigrated to the United States.?
This large immigration was due to the Industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a result of the Agricultural revolution which created new styles of Farming which led to a greater food supply. Since the food supply was greater, people lived longer and had more children. The increase in population created a work force that needed jobs. This helped lead to the industrial revolution. The Industrial revolution led to urbanization. The Industrial revolution also led to a spark of medical revolution which created medicines and vaccines which kept people alive longer. So more people were being born, and they were living longer, so this led to overpopulation. During this time it was the age of Imperialism, this gave the over crowded countries a place to send people and help control the population. Some of these people, especialy from western Europe immigrated to the United states were there was open land that was easily affordable and so they immigrated. And this is what led to the
spike in Immigration in the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s.
What was "The Great Leap Forward"? Who was responsible for it?
HELP
What was %26quot;The Great Leap Forward%26quot;? Who was responsible for it?
Mao Tse Tung came up with it in 1958. Intentions were to build a strong Chinese economy that would rival anything in the West within 30 years.
What was %26quot;The Great Leap Forward%26quot;? Who was responsible for it?
Mao Tse Tung came up with it in 1958. Intentions were to build a strong Chinese economy that would rival anything in the West within 30 years.
Who was Commodore Matthew Perry? Why did he come to Japan in 1853?
HELP
Who was Commodore Matthew Perry? Why did he come to Japan in 1853?
A Naval officer for the U.S. who forced open trade with Japan. It is said that they admired our navy so much upon his visit that they built their own great navy to match. And then they used it against us in WWII. Ironic.
Who was Commodore Matthew Perry? Why did he come to Japan in 1853?
A Naval officer for the U.S. who forced open trade with Japan. It is said that they admired our navy so much upon his visit that they built their own great navy to match. And then they used it against us in WWII. Ironic.
Identify and explain one reason political machines were so successfull in the late 1800s.?
think abdout relationships between immigrants and members of political machines.
and services the political machines provided to people and cities.
and services the political machines provided to people and cities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)