The first inhabitants of Oceania are believed to have come from which continent?Europe

Asia

Africa

South America

Answers

Answer 1
Answer:

The correct answer is Asia.

The first human settlers in Oceania were Homo Sapiens who arrived from Southeast Asia, from them descend the current Papuans and Australian natives. After the first arrival of humans to Australia, the Austronesian people also arrived from Taiwan, they spread from Polynesia to Easter Island.

Answer 2
Answer: The route to Oceania definitely, as we know from archaeological founds and linguistic evidence, went from Africa (so this is in a way true, the way all humans come from Africa) through Asia (this would be the correct aswer), more specifically from Malaysia, towards Australia and Oceania.

Related Questions

The two interpretations of economic history of the early modern period differ most strongly concerning
Milton was born into a prosperous Puritan family.a. Trueb. False
Key privileges included in both the English Bill of Rights and the US Bill of Rights include
Country that colonized Mexico & southwest US
The Zimmerman Note Promised _______ Land In Exchange For Attacking The United States.a.Mexico b. Japan c.Italy d.Germany

Which article accurately describes the newspaper article rendering historical event

Answers

A newspaper article written during a historical event could be called a primary source document

How did socialists suggest solving the inequalities caused by the industrial revolution

Answers

The main way in which many socialists suggested solving the inequalities caused by the industrial revolution was to create labor unions, which would protect the workers from harsh and degrading positions by allowing them to have bargaining rights against their employers. 

Answer:

Ending private ownership of factories, mines, and mills.

Explanation:

apex

Need ASAP!!! Make sure to respond in short essay format, fully answer what is being asked and use complete sentences.If you were advising Gov. Henry Markham of California in 1891, Would you have recommended that he sign or vetoed the ballot reform bill? What was the strongest arguments for and against the bill? Were there any better alternatives that you could have recommended?

Answers

Answer:

Explanation: Tis is all the information you will need have a nice day.

There were several arguments for and against the bill, and it's important to consider all perspectives before making a recommendation.

Arguments for signing the ballot reform bill:

1. Increased transparency: Supporters argued that the bill would promote transparency in the voting process by ensuring that ballots were counted accurately and efficiently.

2. Reduced fraud: The bill aimed to minimize fraudulent voting practices, such as ballot stuffing and voter impersonation, by implementing stricter regulations and safeguards.

3. Equal representation: Advocates believed that the bill would help ensure fair representation by preventing any manipulation of the voting system that could favor specific candidates or parties.

4. Public confidence: Signing the bill could help restore public trust in the electoral process, as voters would have greater confidence that their votes would be counted accurately.

Arguments against signing the ballot reform bill:

1. Restrictive measures: Critics argued that the bill could impose overly strict requirements on voters, potentially disenfranchising certain individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities.

2. Increased bureaucracy: Some opponents believed that implementing the bill's provisions could lead to increased bureaucratic processes, potentially making it more difficult for voters to participate in elections.

3. Costly implementation: The bill's opponents raised concerns about the potential financial burden of implementing the proposed reforms, including the need for additional staff and resources.

4. Unintended consequences: Critics suggested that the bill's provisions might inadvertently lead to new forms of fraud or manipulation, undermining the intended purpose of the reform.

Regarding alternative recommendations, there could have been several options depending on the specific concerns and priorities of Gov. Markham. For example, he could have proposed amendments to address the potential drawbacks of the ballot reform bill or explored alternative reform measures that aimed to improve the electoral process in different ways.

In conclusion, whether Gov. Markham should sign or veto the ballot reform bill would depend on his assessment of the arguments for and against the bill, as well as any alternative solutions that may have been available. It is essential to thoroughly evaluate the potential impact and trade-offs of any decision related to electoral reform.

When World War I began, the official United States policy was (Points : 1) to enter on the side of the Allied Powers
to enter on the side of the Central Powers
to remain militarily and politically neutral
to support the Central Powers by providing war materials

Answers


In general the USA took the side of: remain militarily and politically neutral.

However, there were some companies in the United States that were able to somehow supply the Allies. Then there were some others who supported the Central powers by doing business with those countries.

Hopefully this helps.

C) To remain militarily and politically neutral.

The United States did not wish to get politically involved in the armed military conflict between the European nations. In order to preserve its neutrality, the United States maintained a policy of isolation, under which it refused to get politically involved in diplomatic gestures. However, the United States did not follow a policy of complete neutral policy, as it turned its economy into the biggest war material producer.  

Further Explanation:

The United States acted as a major supplier of arms, ammunition, weapons and food supplies to both the Allied Powers and the Central Powers, however, their political ideologies shifted increasingly to align with that of the Allied Powers. Thus, it would be a misnomer to say that the United States was politically and militarily neutral. The United States also acted as a major financier of the Allied Powers and was entitled to huge revenues that came in from the expansion of the war effort.  

However, the constant aggressive attitudes and suspicions of the Central Powers towards the United States and her government caused an overture in her diplomatic position, making the U.S. Government take a stand against the aggression of Central Powers and joining the war on the side of the Allied forces. American Passenger Liners were being utilized by allies to bring an invaluable shipment of arms and ammunition. Increasingly, it became difficult for the United States to maintain a neutral stand, for her political ideologies increasingly allied her with Britain, France, and Russia, and it became the mission of the United States Government to contain the forces of authoritarianism and work together to usher the modern era in a framework of political liberalism and democracy.

Learn more:

1. Starting in the 1800s, members of the suffragist movement in the united states focused on women's right to

brainly.com/question/1298741

2. How many of the devices you identified inside the control room need electricity to operate?

brainly.com/question/730146

Answer Details:

Grade: High School

Chapter: The First World War

Subject: History

Keywords:

Non involvement, military assistance, revenue, diplomacy, no political involvement, Progressive Era, Democratic political structures, arms and ammunition, supplies.

How did the independence movements in india and algeria differ? please help!!

Answers

The main difference is the independence movement India didn't use any force, meanwhile the independence movement in Algeria did.

Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Ghandi in his ant-war movement

The Algerian Independence was led by Charles de Gaulle in Algerian Revolution war

Answer:

Explanation:

The independence movements in India didn’t use any force, whereas the movements in Algeria did use violent force.

The foreign policy jimmy Carter passed was based on views of human right. True or False

Answers

for this one is it True