Correct answer: the deaths of many protesters.
In response to student-led protests calling for democratic reforms, the Chinese government cracked down harshly. Martial law was declared and over 200,000 troops were deployed to Bejing. On the evening of June 3, 1989, the army opened fire on the protesters, and forceful efforts by the military to clear Tienanmen Square of protesters continued through June 4.
The death toll for protesters has been much disputed. The official Chinese government estimate said no more than 300 were killed -- and they included soldiers in that number. However, a message from the British ambassador to China, sent at the time of the incidents, estimated the death toll to be at least 10.000. The ambassador's memo, declassified in 2017, described how some protesters were bayoneted as they begged for their lives and how human remains were “hosed down the drains.”
After protests in Tienanmen Square in China were crushed, on the next day (June 5), a lone protester stood in the street against the government's tanks. "Tank Man" (as he became known) captured the international imagination as an individual standing up against the overwhelming power of the government.
Answer:
D: the deaths of many protestors
Answer:
Agriculture and AKST can affect a range of health issues including undernutrition, chronic diseases, infectious diseases, food safety, and environmental and occupational health.
The question whether Federalists or Anti-Federalists would gain more support if the Constitution were up for ratification today is theoretical, and would depend on current judgments concerning power balance, individual rights, state sovereignty, and central government effectiveness. Historically, the Constitution was ratified with the promise of a Bill of Rights, satisfying both Federalist and Anti-Federalist concerns. Modern understandings of these ideologies and the Constitution are complex, as it represents a blend of both philosophies and changes according to societal needs.
If the Constitution was up for ratification today, deciding whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists would win more support is purely speculative and would depend on the priorities of the present-day populous. Federalists historically sought a strong central government for national defense and economic growth, seeing it as beneficial to society, whereas Anti-Federalists feared the concentration of power in the hands of a few, arguing for protection of individual rights and state sovereignty.
Respecting the historical context, Federalists won ratification by promising the inclusion of a bill of rights which protected individual rights - an Anti-Federalist concern. In the present day, favorability towards Federalist or Anti-Federalist views could therefore largely depend on current perceptions about the balance of power, individual rights, state sovereignty, and the effectiveness of the central government.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to remember that these political ideologies correspond to the late 18th-century context and translating them directly to today may overlook complexities of modern socio-political structures. Regardless of theoretical support, the Constitution today is arguably a blend of both Federalist and Anti-Federalist ideals and remains a living document, evolving according to the needs and values of the society.
#SPJ3
The correct option is D) a Separatist.
The group that would have most likely spoken the statement above is a separatist.
In the 16th and 17th century, the terms Separatist meant that people wanted to separate from the church of England to form other churches that were independent. The English Protestants of that time grew tired of the corruption they saw in the church of England. That is why on the passage we read that "the only way we can practice pure religion, based on the Bible's Sermons, is to break away from the church..."
The other options of the question were a) Catholic, b) Protestant, and c) Puritan.