Which group of people had the right to vote in britian in the 1700s?
In answer to your first question, only property-owning males had the right to vote. As to the second question, I'm a little bit confused by your use of the word "who." There were a number of events that made Britain a world power, but I'd be hard put to identify any single individual.
How many fringe militia groups exist in America-- both Black and White?
It depends on who you ask, but if you go buy the SPLC’s estimates for the white separatist groups, the number is in the hundreds, with varying degrees of orderliness, membership requirements and not all are strictly monolithic.On the other hand, black nationalism seems to be more unified. Often pointed out are the Panthers or Nation of Islam or Weathermen. I think it’s fair to say that while blacks are more openly sympathetic towards black nationalist causes at times, the number of black nationalist organizations is smaller, both because the separatists concentrate themselves there as well as the fact that blacks don’t participate in them as much. That’s not necessarily because they don’t sympathize, but perhaps also because they don’t see a value in participation.Contrarily, white nationalist groups have a large membership than can be publicly determined due to social stigma among whites. Whites condemn other whites for white nationalism far more than blacks condemn blacks for black nationalism because they are less sympathetic to white nationalists who share their skin color for obvious historical reasons. As a result, estimating the precise size of these organizations is subject to bias and speculation, but it is certain there is less unity among white nationalist organizations in terms of organizational structure and by all accounts, there is good reason to suspect that the lower bound of total individuals is well above the total number of black nationalists.That being said, in a so-called open conflict, civil war or “race war,” organizational differences between white nationalists or black nationalists might disappear and they may unify for practical purposes with one side or another, all of which is just speculative.
Given how few people were enfranchised by the US Declaration of Independence, does it really represent a break from history?
It does, I’d argue. The strange thing about the US that many modern Americans and Europeans fail to appreciate, is that America was basically a state founded on the very progressive (for it’s time) ideals of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment.It had no aristocracy, landed gentry or monarchy, at a time where these ancient institutions dominated Europe completelyThere was complete secularism and no official national Church was established. The US refused to identify with any of the major European Christian traditions and granted all citizens religious freedomThe system of centralized monarchy was, for the first time in a long period of Western history, completely replaced by a democratic government, that was originally designed to have no warring factions (unfortunately, they appeared later)I could go on and on, but I think the OP get’s the point. Having a complete modern universal enfranchisement would have been impossible in the age of the US Constitution. They were very different times and most of the Founding Fathers would likely be appaled by what we call progressivism today, because by our modern standards, they were all regressive racists and sexists.But it represented a break with the conservative traditions of the Old World and set the stage for a conflict that had slowly developed in the Western world and would cause some of the greatest wars in European history; the conflict between liberalism and conservatism.
What is the difference/similarity between urban studies and sociology course?(introductory courses)?
Sociology looks at similarities and differences of a variety of cultures over history and compares how people act, in groups. That could be tribal, feudal, whatever. It's the study of basic human interaction in groups. Urban studies would relate to how people act and interact, in a specific setting. People act and react differently to situations, based upon their environment. The needs of a community are very different in urban areas, as opposed to rural areas. Urban infrastructure is far more complicated due to demand. The similarities might discuss the needs of the community; such as water, transportation, jobs, food supply, who is enfranchised, who is not and how it affects the group as a whole. Economics and politics are driven and affected by the weather and environment. Sociology is more a general class on human behavior. Urban studies would be more a class on humans who live in close quarters and requires more specific analysis because of the environment. If you intend to go into planning and development, you might get more from an Urban Studies class. Good planning can cut down on many sociological issues in large cities, in my opinion.
What language did the Romans speak?
The Romans' language was Latin, with Classical Latin, called 'Latinitas' ('pure Latin') being the one used for official purposes, such as birth certificates and wills of Roman citizens (until the reign of Alexander Severus in the 3rd century AD) as well as in the law courts.Vulgar Latin (from 'vulgus' meaning 'common people', 'crowd' or 'herd') was used informally by the citizenry.The Romans did not impose their language on peoples who became part of their Empire, and there was in consequence a great multiplicity of languages spoken in the Empire.The other major language in the Empire was Greek, and this was largely due to Alexander the Great's imposition of that language on people he conquered, which was rather a large number of people, including many around the Eastern Mediterranean and parts of western Asia Minor.It was also studied as a classical language by aristocratic or wealthy Romans, much in the same way Latin and Greek were and continue to be studied in English public schools. Indeed, if Caesar had indeed uttered the phrase, 'you too, Brutus?' to his killer Brutus, it likely would not have been in Latin ('et tu, Brute?') that he did so, but in Greek ('kai su teknon?').After 212 AD, the date when freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were enfranchised, becoming Roman citizens, the number of said citizens who spoke Latin became smaller in terms of percentages, though it remained important as a lingua franca of the Roman Empire.For more information on history and education in general, feel free to visit us at Riviera Tutors.