For the quote below what group of americans is this quote referring to ?
White males were the principal beneficiaries, and property owners had rights denied to those without property. Women were discriminated against in England, and their status as American citizens was not much different. Slavery was not forbidden by the new Constitution, and slaves waited fourscore years to be freed, and another hundred years passed before their equality under the law began to be realized. Native Americans had few rights. In a few instances treaties were written between tribes and the US Government, but the rights of the natives were those granted by the specific treaties, rather than the Constitution, and many of the treaties were themselves violated. The Revolutionary War was a long step forward for equality and natural rights, but only a long step in a journey of many miles!
My friend told me before the Americans were in WW2 a group of GIs were sent into Russia to help the Russians.?
no absolutely not we didnt give them reinforcments at all at any part of the war only supplies and actualy russia was a very untrust worthy friend stalin didnt like us and we didnt like him we were this united against a common fough also we had plans to drop oss agents into poland to start to dislodge the russians and let the german army advance so when we won we would have poland and russia wouldnt
Outside of the US, I would say that “American” is an ethnic group. It answers the question, “What are you?” in a more useful way than does. “Scots-Irish, German, French, and English with a touch of Cherokee.” (“Ah, ha! He said ‘Cherokee,’ so that means the real answer to my question is American!”)I would also extend the description “ethnic American” to naturalized citizens who fit in here more comfortably than they do in their birth country and whose loyalties are here rather than there. Yes, such do exist. My wife became an American because she fits in better here. She visits her aged mother when possible, but has said that she would refuse a job transfer to her country of birth because of the cultural expectations she left behind by choice.
First off: You'll have to define closed-minded. If you mean the degree to which a person is willing to adopt the other sides opinions as their own you will see that not a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle are prepared to do that. However, if you mean the degree of which people are willing to listen to the other sides arguments before trying to refute them, we're getting somewhere. But not very far. You see, the biggest difference in open-mindedness can be found if you only compare ideologies, not ages. A 24 year old southen christian evangelical will be much more likely to be closed-minded than a californian atheist girl of the same age. Education and ideology are very important factors. I'd argue the democratic party is much more likely to compromise than the Republican party making them the most open-minded party. However, republican voters are older than democratic voters. Thus, they're might be a correlation. If I am to be brutally honest with you, I don't think age is all that important. Education and ideology however, is extremely important. If I were to guess which age groups are more likely to be closed minded, I'd think it has to be the older ones though.
How would U.S. governments respond if a group of Americans formed a militia to protect themselves from tyranny?
properly you're initiating from a premise that folk with palms can shelter themselves adverse to Tyranny. provided that in each and every conflict there's a loser and maximum wars this century were between armed countries i'd say it really is truly solid info that being armed guarantees you bugger all. As continually some uneducated type mentions Hitler and is going off about 'if the people were armed....".... properly heads up, the Polish people had the right to palms, as did the Belgians, the Greek and the Norwegians. Did it avert their international places falling less than tyranny.... not a bloody threat. the reality is that if any cutting-edge tyrant had the backing of the countries military there'd be worthwhile little the overall inhabitants might want to do about it. some terrorist attacks perhaps....an underground, yet let's be trustworthy it really is it. No palms at the prompt are not the perfect protection adverse to tyranny, practise vigilance and holding a watch on those who may carry power is the purely desire we've. and that is incredibly how straightforward it really is.
China has a history of 5000 years and has accumulated massive lessons on how to run a country.The influence of China is dramaticlly growing and that means we have a working system that pushes China forward.American is just a country with more or less 250 year's history and it is the most powerful country for a few decades but it does't mean it will be working in the next decades.Now China and US sepatately indicates its uniqueness and specialty and both are run well currently.What about the results in the coming few decades? We have to wait and see and then we decide which one takes the upper hand.The world is beautiful because of its diversity and democracy is obviously not universal and sometimes chaotic and problmatic. India is a so-called democratic country and we have the very same situation, but look at both countries and the difference is quite obvious. China becomes the second largest economy in the world and her people are enjoying decent lives. India still cannot deal with its poverty and shaky infrastructure.Every country is a unique ecosystem and it grows in its own way. Don't try to break it ,or else you will cause chaos. Just look at what the USA has done and has been waging wars all around the world and produced millions of refugees. If this is what democracy is , better keep it for your own.The western media arbitrarily declare China is a authoritarian regime but it's not true.For the future of China, I think she will own a unique system, a combination of authoritarianism and democracy. For the messy stuff, you have to powful enough to make a final decison like a hero and for the easy stuff, you can count on voting. Anyway the system must be effective and efficient, unlike cumbersome and messy democracy, and at the same time,unlike arbitrary and almighty God.So keep your democracy for your own and we just don't like it. China has its own unique system .Why we bring something people don't care about.China has its prosperity and stability and its unique democracy.
I do not think you need a group of Americans to improve your accent! Everybody speaks with accent and it is not a shame to speak with accent only if what you said is understandable!If you do really want to improve it, find an audio or video and listen or watch it every day! Imitate the way they speak! After thousands of times' imitation, you will make progress.
If they never marry outside their group, they would never look like Chinese eventually. This is because the physical appearance of Chinese societies have evolved way before modern times, when our human ancestors first reached to Far Asia. Back then, they were under selective pressure of the environment, meaning that they were dying or surviving based on their physical differences, created by the variation mechanisms of evolution, such as mutations, crossing over, transposons, etc. However, now in the modern times, no American community would die due to their physical differences, meaning that there would be no selective pressure over them, meaning that they would never look like Chinese even after thousands of generations, given that they always breed with their own community. If not, they would start looking Chinese even after a few generations due to the mixture of genes via sexual reproduction.
Why are a group of African Americans males fear me on the bus when I bring up religion?
religion is stupid, personal belief good, religion bad! message for mexican warrior: you call me weak troll? **** you i beat every troll on this sectiona nd if you wanna dance with the SAXON WARRIOR then il ****** dance ***** edit: britney, I am Sven Saxon Hartermann, i come from Saxony Germany. I am 6'4 green eyed germanic muscular god! . My first job was in the german military until I joined the french foreign legion. I am now a geneticist and i work in Cambridge university on the genetics of fossils to find old diseases that affected us and how we can use this information to stop diseases that currently plague us. Growing up I saw my mother killed by my drunk father and I was sent to the UK to live with my anglo-saxon cousins. This had a major impact on my personality and my mental state.... the end who are you britney? because all I see is a pathetic troll who cant even offend people, you are just pain in the asshole. I AM THE BIG BAD TROLL HERE!
Indigenous people, I assume that's what your question mean, are not racialized until 18th century. Not biological race, anyway. Race as a biological concept doesn't exist until the rise of Enlightenment when science took over metaphysics/natural philosophy in becoming the true mode to understand the world. Thats when race is assigned to phenotype, skull size, blood and so on. The idea of racial blood (or bloodline) follows us into modernity as a lingering effect of scientific racism and polic such as blood quantum, designed to control the racial identities of Native peoples. (You can stop being Native at one point if you mix with too many generations of other races except black, black people had one drop rule).So no, there is no race for Indigenous folks in the US, not until the state starts racializing them.