and after World War I?
(1) More economic opportunities existed in the
North.
(2) Few chances to gain political office were
available in the South.
(3) Racism and discrimination had been
eliminated in the North.
(4) Southern cities were overcrowded.
B) The Spirit enters the body of another life-form.
C) The Spirit also dies and fades into nothingness.
D) The Spirit enters the underworld ruled over by the God of death.
Answer:
by attracting conservative Southern voters to the Republican Party
Explanation:
Answer:
First, feudalism discouraged unified government. Individual lords would divide their lands into smaller and smaller sections to give to lesser rulers and knights. These lesser noblemen in turn would subdivide their own lands into even smaller fiefs to give to even less important nobles and knights.
Feudalism was a decentralized system where power and wealth were held by feudal lords, while the system that followed had a stronger central authority. Feudalism was primarily agrarian, while the system that followed had a transition to a more commercial and capitalist economy.
Feudalism was a system of government in medieval Europe where land was given in exchange for military service. The system that followed feudalism was the centralized monarchy and nation-states of the early modern period. Feudalism was a decentralized system with power and wealth held by feudal lords, while the system that followed had a stronger central authority and a more organized government.
One major difference between feudalism and the system that followed is the concentration of power. In feudalism, power was distributed among the feudal lords who controlled their own territories, while the system that followed had a central authority that had more control over the entire nation-state.
Another difference is the economic structure. Feudalism was primarily an agrarian society where the majority of the population engaged in farming and worked the land owned by the feudal lords. In the system that followed, there was a transition to a more commercial and capitalist economy with the growth of trade and industry.
#SPJ1
The answer really depends on whether the farmer is also the landlord or only a worker in the fields, and bearing in mind that the question refers only to Chavez’ reforms, not what is now called Chavismo, that is to say, the rule of President Maduro.
If the first, then there are chances that the landlord would feel threatened about the fact this his land could be —although not necessarily— appropriated by the State, but also, he might feel relieved to learn that his land could be more productive since there would be a lot more subsidies for farming since the oil revenues of the country would again be in the hands of the State.
If it is the second possibility, the farmer most likely would feel relieved altogether since subsidies to labor power and farming would mean greater income and better living conditions for him and his family.
Answer:
Like many farmers and laborers, I likely would support the changes that Chávez brought about because they helped Venezuela’s poor. As president, Chávez introduced education, healthcare, and labor initiatives to improve the quality of life for the lower classes of Venezuela.
Explanation:a