History, 15.12.2019 09:31, isabel2417

Which of the following conclusions do u. s. attitudes toward the panama canal during the 20th century support?

a. peoples points of veiw can change to suit changes in historical context.
b. biases prevent most people from participating in a changing historical context.
c. contextualization of a historical event should not be changed once it has been made.
d. historical context can only be determined long after an event has passed.

Answers: 3

Show answers

Answers

A. People's point of view can change to suit changes in historical context.

Allow me to add some explanation about historical context and how that works.

When the Panama Canal was built in the early 1900s, the historical and political context was one of imperialism. President Theodore Roosevelt of the United States used military pressure and warships to force Columbia to recognize Panama's independence, and then arranged with Panama to cede a strip of land to the United States (for $10 million) so that the US could build the canal and control the canal zone for commercial purposes.
By the late 20th century, the historical and political context was much different, and imperialistic control of overseas territories was no longer in vogue. In 1977, US President Jimmy Carter signed a treaty with Panama which agreed to give over control of the canal to Panama by the end of the century, with transfer of control taking place on December 31, 1999.
Part of the reason for willingness to make that transfer was that the Panama Canal had become expensive for the United States to maintain and operate -- so that part of the historical context plays in also. Since Panama took over the canal, they have actually done very well financially with it. You could check out a good book on the subject, The Big Ditch, by Noel Maurer and Carlos Yu, published by Princeton University Press in 2010.

answered: Guest

answer: a parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state where the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature, typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. in a parliamentary system, the head of state is usually a person distinct from the head of government. this is in contrast to a presidential system, where the head of state often is also the head of government and, most importantly, the executive does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

countries with parliamentary democracies may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of parliament (such as the united kingdom, denmark, sweden, and japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such as ireland, germany, india, and italy). in a few parliamentary republics, such as botswana, south africa, and suriname, among some others, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to parliament. in bicameral parliaments, the head of government is generally, though not always, a member of the lower house.

parliamentarianism is the dominant form of government in europe, with 32 of its 50 sovereign states being parliamentarian. it is also common in the caribbean, being the form of government of 10 of its 13 island states, and in oceania. elsewhere in the world, parliamentary countries are less common, but they are distributed through all continents, most often in former colonies of the british empire that subscribe to a particular brand of parliamentarianism known as the westminster system.

explanation:

answered: Guest

answer

wages and job opportunities have grown slowly since the recovery began five years ago, while technology continues to change the nature of work. while many workers enjoy opportunities unimaginable a generation ago, many others feel the economy has left them b

explanation: