Choose TWO of the following questions
1. Around 1500 three different continents co-mingled in North America. Describe the similarities and differences of the civilizations of native-Americans, Europeans, and Africans at the point of contact. Include division of labor, religion, economy, government and cultural and scientific achievements. Why were the Europeans able to dominate? 2. Contrast Colonial New England with Colonial Chesapeake. Include description of their economies, religious practices, labor sources, government and familiar patterns. Were these differences caused more by topographical factors or immigration patterns? 3. Defend or refute the following statement: “The struggle was not over high-sounding political and constitutional concepts, over the power of taxation or even in the final analysis over natural rights. It was over colonial manufacturing, wild lands and furs, sugar, wine, tea, and currency, all of which meant, simply, the survival or collapse of English mercantile capitalism within the imperialist-colonial framework of the mercantile system.” 4.Winning the Revolutionary War was easy in comparison to creating a new government. Discuss the issues facing the nation after the American Revolution, in regards to creating a new government. Why did the Articles of Confederation fail? And in what ways did the founding fathers compromise at the Constitutional Convention? 5. Despite any mention of the creation of political parties in the constitution, a two party system developed in the United States. Compare and contrast the Hamiltonian Federalist party with the Jeffersonian Democratic/Republican party. Include differences in membership, philosophy, federal vs. state power, economic issues and foreign policies. Which party would you have supported and why?
Vulnerability about who made damage the tyke is likewise another issue which neighborhood experts and courts for the most part encounter. The issue of the 'obscure culprit' was tended to on account of Lancashire CC v B. For this situation, plainly the tyke had endured hurt. Nonetheless, it was uncertain whether it was the parent or the kid minder who had made mischief the youngster. Their Lordships held that as long as obviously the mishandle was caused by a parent or a youngster minder, it didn't make a difference which had executed the manhandle. Then again, where it isn't certain whether the mischief was caused by a parent or somebody who was not an essential carer of the kid, at that point no care request could be made. In spite of the fact that the House of Lords gave an unmistakable direction on when the edge criteria would be fulfilled on account of an 'obscure culprit', they gave restricted direction on how the court should manage an obscure culprit when choosing whether a care request ought to be granted. Their Lordships came back to that issue in Re O and N, where it was underlined that "in light of the fact that the limit criteria was fulfilled, it didn't naturally imply that a care arrange must be made". In one of the interest cases, it was apparent that the tyke was hurt by one of the guardians, who had since isolated. The tyke lived with the mother. The issue for their Lordships was whether the doubts that the mischief may have been caused by the mother ought to be considered. Their Lordships held that doubts could be considered at the welfare organize. Ruler Nicholls anyway underscored that social laborers ought to be cautious in such cases to regard the guardians as potential culprits, not demonstrated culprits. In this manner, in Re S-B, it was affirmed that if the two guardians were conceivable culprits, the court may choose to expel the kid as they were in danger of mischief. It is consequently presented that in Lancashire, the House of Lords took a detectably remiss translation of the edge criteria as the youngsters could be expelled from their folks regardless of whether they didn't execute the manhandle. In any case, it was most likely not as remiss as it could have been as it was important to demonstrate that an essential carer of the tyke was hurting the kid. 'Noteworthy damage' Regardless of whether the actualities are known, there is much contention over how much enduring the youngster should look before the neighborhood expert could intercede. Mischief is generally characterized in s.31(9) of the Children Act 1989 as the "evil treatment or the debilitation of wellbeing or advancement." 'Wellbeing' signifies 'physical and emotional wellness'. 'Advancement' incorporates "physical, scholarly, passionate or social improvement". Because of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the meaning of 'hurt' additionally incorporates the 'hindrance endured by hearing or seeing the evil treatment of another'. The enactment, be that as it may, does not characterize the line amongst 'hurt' and 'critical mischief'. The Court of Appeal in Re C (A Child) disclosed that to be critical, the damage must be "sufficiently awesome to legitimize the nearby expert meddling in the self-sufficient existence of the family". The test will hence be subjective to the specific conditions. This brings up numerous issues. On the off chance that a neighborhood expert finds that a youngster is living in a house where the family's eating routine is undesirable and where the kids invest all their energy before the TV, what ought to be finished? Joanna Nicolas, a youngster assurance specialist, trusts that "heftiness ought to likewise be dealt with as a type of manhandle as a starving seems to be, as a result of the physical effect on the tyke, the suggestions for their future wellbeing and the mental impact." However, numerous would contend that this sort of circumstance isn't adequately genuine to legitimize intercession. This puts social specialists in a troublesome circumstance as they don't know in which conditions it will be fitting for them to intercede. Ward LJ likewise focuses on the significance of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights while evaluating the hugeness of the damage, featuring that Article 8 requires that there must be a '"pertinent and adequate" explanation behind intersection the threshold'. Additionally, if the state is to intercede in a youngster's life, the level of state mediation must be proportionate to the hazard that the tyke is enduring. There is a threat that a tyke who is truly enduring will be known to the neighborhood expert, however never, very, be viewed as affliction adequately to legitimize mediation. In Re MA, the nearby expert found that a young lady, who was not the natural girl of the guardians, had been gravely treated by them. In any case, no care arrange was conceded in regard of the guardians' other youngsters as their Lordships found that there was no adequate confirmation of a danger of critical mischief to their common kids. The choice for this situation is questionable as the guardians exhibited a limit with respect to savagery and along these lines offered ascend to a genuine probability that they would hurt their own kids. In choosing whether the youngster is experiencing 'noteworthy mischief', the 'tyke's wellbeing or improvement must be contrasted and that which could sensibly be anticipated from a 'comparative child'. There are various issues with respect to the 'comparative tyke' test. There is specific contention over the degree to which the social foundation of the youngster ought to be taken into account. It is likewise indistinct to which degree the attributes or capacities of the guardians ought to be considered. Changes and proposals Throughout the previous 40 years, a few changes have been proposed to enhance the law on 'kid security' and make up for disappointments by and by. A significant number of these changes reacted to the total confirmation investigations and prominent audits into kids' passings including: the 1974 Maria Colwell request which prompted the Area Review Committees, the 1988 Cleveland request which framed the early forms of the statutory direction Working Together To Safeguard Children and the Victoria Climbié Report which added to the Every Child Matters green paper with prescribed strategies intended to guarantee that it never happened again. Since the individual changes of the past have all appeared to be wise and very much planned, it appears to be baffling that they have not accomplished their proposed goals. It is presented that there may have been an excessive number of pointless targets. Rather than tending to existing handy issues, for example, poor framework administration and insufficient financing, the past changes have focussed a lot on the procedure of case administration and expanding control. This may have obstructed the main problem of youngster insurance. The Munro report has given some fascinating suggestions to enhance the law on kid insurance with specific spotlight on early mediation, the straightforwardness and responsibility of the framework and the aptitude of the social work calling. All in all, it is presented that there is no predictable subject in the approach of their Lordships concerning the edge criteria. There is anyway expanding confirmation to propose that the limits should be lower. Observers from the courts discovered almost no proof of improper expulsion of youngsters and numerous cases where prior evacuation would have been appropriate. This is supported by scholastic research. Teacher Ward noticed that "there is generous confirmation that numerous youngsters stay for a really long time with or are come back to oppressive and careless families with deficient support".>GET ANSWER