d. pidgin....................
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
The statement that is definitely false is
that archaeologists and anthropologists rarely work together - in fact they work together very, very often! The fields are related and many archaeologists see themselves as anthropologists, too. So we can reject the answer
"Archaeologists and anthropologists are in totally separate fields and rarely work together. " (this is the false statement that the question is looking for"
Explanation:
They both can concern the past. Anthropology is the understanding of people, in the past, in the instant and as they evolve over time and Archaeology particularly looks at the palpable culture of the past.
Archaeology is a sub field of Anthropology (one of four) so there is no difference. Both involved in the study of culture, though Archaeology concentrates on material culture and usually historical/ancient sites. Anthropology is the study of human culture: how people live and work and what they make.
Internment camps were affirmed as legal.
Japanese Americans returned to their homes.
Executive Order 9022 was overturned.
The effect of Korematsu v. United States was that internment camps were affirmed as legal.
Korematsu v. United States was one of the key cases of the Supreme Court of the United States, where compliance with the Executive Order 9066 was considered, according to which Japanese-Americans were obliged to relocate to internment camps during the Second World War, regardless of their citizenship.
By a decision of 6 judges against 3, the Supreme Court agreed with the government, declaring that the order complies with the Constitution. The decision made by Judge Hugo Black ruled that the need for protection against espionage outweighed the individual rights of Fred Korematsu, as well as the rights of other Americans of Japanese origin.
The effect of Korematsu v. United States was the affirmation of the constitutionality of Japanese American internment during World War II, setting a controversial precedent for potential civil rights violations during times of national security.
The effect of Korematsu v. United States was:
1. Japanese Americans were not allowed to return to their homes immediately after the ruling. The internment camps were not immediately disbanded.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, validating the government's actions based on military necessity.
3. Discrimination and racial profiling against Japanese Americans continued, despite the ruling.
4. The decision set a precedent that allowed the government to potentially justify the violation of civil rights during times of national security or military conflict.
5. The ruling remained controversial and was widely criticized for its infringement on civil liberties, eventually leading to calls for its reconsideration and efforts to overturn it. However, the specific Executive Order 9022 was not directly affected by the ruling.
Learn more on Korematsu v. United States here;
#SPJ6
No allies were willing to help.
The United States had started a war without provocation from another country.
The economy was not strong enough to support a war in the Middle East.
Answer:
"The United States had started a war without provocation from another country."
Explanation:
The world demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were a series of protests called and coordinated worldwide against the imminent invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, being the first calls of a truly global character in history.
These massive demonstrations were organized mainly by anti-war and anti-war organizations, many of which had already opposed the invasion of Afghanistan years ago. In some Arab countries, the demonstrations were organized by the State; However, Europe witnessed the largest demonstrations, including the three million people who marched through Rome, the capital of Italy, against the war, a manifestation that entered the Guinness Book of Records as the largest anti-war demonstration in history.
In the United States, pro-war protesters often described opponents of war as "a minority"; A Gallup poll on September 14, 2007 showed that "since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war outnumber their supporters. Most Americans believe that the war was a mistake. " In Europe, surveys of the time showed that between 75 and 90% of the continent's population opposed war. Local circumstances allowed the effects of the protests to endure over time, especially in the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain and Italy. In spite of everything, the alliance initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003.
Intro
Done
Answer:
"Canada claimed France for 1.4 billion dollars"
Explanation:
I can't think of an explanation right now, sorry!