The major difference between Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong can be simply put that Deng Xiaoping was much more practical and realistic.
Deng Xiaoping was not extreme as Mao Zedong, and unlike Mao who closed the country to the world and implemented non-realistic terrible economic policies, Deng reformed the economy of China and opened it up to the world.
Deng started with the Four Modernizations, which included the agriculture, industry, technology, and science development. He opened up the country gradually to the world, and gave his best to modernize the country, catch the pace of the developed countries, and make China a strong nation. All of his policies were perfected to detail, they were realistic, practical, and very efficient, resulting in great prosperity and development in China very rapidly, making China the biggest producer of goods in the world, as well as one of the strongest nations in every aspect in the world. No wonder that he is often referred to as the ''Greatest economist in the human history''.
Deng Xiaoping differed from Mao Zedong as he implemented economic reforms that shifted the country towards more free market practices, focused on economic development as a means to achieve Party goals, and opened up China to foreign investment. While Mao's policies were more isolationist and focused on pure Communist principles.
Deng Xiaoping was significantly different from Mao Zedong as the leader of the Chinese Communist Party due to several reasons. First, Deng reversed many of Mao's policies that had resulted in failure, such as the Great Leap Forward. Instead, Deng implemented economic reforms that allowed for more free market practices, this was a marked shift from Mao's rigid adherence to Communist principles. Deng allowed peasants to sell grain surpluses, which led to increased food production and alleviation of shortages. This was in contrast to Mao's policy of collectivization of agriculture.
Second, while Mao focused on revolutionary struggle as a means to achieve Communist goals, Deng Xiaoping focused on economic modernizing and building, believing that economic power was key to achieving the Party's goals. He also implemented political reforms, called for term limits and redrafting of the constitution.
Third, Mao Zedong managed the country with more of an isolationist view, believing in China's independent path to Communism that diverged from how it was achieved in Europe. In contrast, Deng opened China up to foreign investment and foreign companies, which greatly improved the Chinese standard of living and the country's economic position globally.
#SPJ12
Slavery led to the growth of economy of Texas getting more land under cultivation and leading to more cultivation of cotton.
Explanation:
Slavery led to the growth and development of the economy of Texas. People who were enslaved worked very hard and as a result of this, there was flourishment of the cotton industries in the economy of Texas.
With the slavery, the settlements grew and flourished in Texas, leading to more cultivation of cotton and many other commodities in Texas. More land came under cultivation.
Answer:
Slavery contributed to the growth and creation of Texas' economy.
Explanation:
Slavery contributed to the growth and creation of Texas' economy. People who were slaves worked very hard and the cotton industry flourished in the Texas economy as a result of this.
The settlements in Texas expanded and flourished with slavery, leading to further production in Texas of cotton and many other commodities. More land has been cultivated.
Hope this helps!
b. Grant Wood
c. Richard Wright
d. Dorothea Lange
Answer:
its d
Explanation:
just took the test
Answer:
Pope Urban made a very public and urgent plea in 1095 to all of Christendom after receiving a letter from the Byzantine Emperor Alexis describing the increasing danger from the Seljuk Turks, Tartars from Asia, who had already conquered the caliphate of Baghdad in 1055 and now were seeking to expand their empire into the Holy Land. All of the history you have heard about the Crusades is so much hogwash:
from Seven Lies About Catholic History, by Diane Moczar
Unprovoked Muslim aggression in the seventh century brought large parts of the southern Byzantine Empire, including Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt under Arab rule. Christians who survived the conquests found themselves subject to a special poll tax and discriminated against as an inferior class known as dhimmi. Often their churches were destroyed and other harsh conditions imposed. For centuries their complaints had been reaching Rome, but Europe was having its own Dark Age of massive invasion, and nothing could be done to relieve the plight of eastern Christians.
By the eleventh century, under the rule of a new Muslim dynasty, conditions worsened. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, site of the Crucifixion was destroyed, along with a large number of other churches, and Christian pilgrims were massacred. In 1067 a group of seven thousand peaceful German pilgrims lost two-thirds of their number to Muslim assaults. By this time the popes, including St. Gregory VII, were actively trying to rally support for relief of eastern Christians, though without success. It was not until the very end of the century, in 1095, that Pope Urban's address at Clermont in France met with a response-though not quite the one he had hoped for. But the response was what we now call the First Crusade.
"The general consensus of opinion among medievalists . . . is tha thte Crusades were military expeditions organized by the peoples of Western Christendom, notably the Normans and the French, under the leadership of the Roman Popes, for the recover of the Holy Places from their Muslim masters." This seems to sum up most neatly what the Crusades really were and how their participants actually viewed them. The Crusades were not colonialist or commercial ventures, they were not intended to force Christianity on Jews and Muslims, and they were not the projects of individual warlords. Their primary goal, in addition to the defense of the Eastern Empire, was the recovery of the Holy Land for Christendom, and they acknowledged the leadership of the Popes. As French historian Louis Brehier wrote, 'the popes alone understood the menace of Islam's progress for christian civilization.'"
Explanation: