subject
English, 23.05.2020 07:03 lovenahofer

1.
In your opinion, why were people hesitant to accepted genocide as a punishable crime?
2.
In the context of the text, what can we learn from tragedy? How did Raphael Lemkin's
personal tragedies compel him to act? How did tragedy compel the rest of the world to
accept genocide as a crime for which individuals needed to be held accountable? Cite
evidence from this text, your own experience, and other literature, art, or history in your
answer.
3.
In the context of the text how do people create change? How did Raphael Lemkin work to
ensure that genocide would become a crime for which individuals could be punished? Why
was the creation of the word itself an important part of creating change? Cite evidence from
this text your own experience, and other literature, art or history in your answer.
4.In the context of the text, how are we changed by war? How was Raphael Lemkin changed
by the wars he witnessed? Cite evidence from this text your own experience, and other
Interature, art or history in your answer.

ansver
Answers: 1

Another question on English

question
English, 22.06.2019 00:30
Amanda bought a prom dress which she considered the most beautiful dress ever made. adjective clause: word(s) modified:
Answers: 2
question
English, 22.06.2019 02:30
In the following conversation, which group discussion technique does emily most clearly show?
Answers: 1
question
English, 22.06.2019 03:30
Some one drawing water and my theater placed my hand under the spout. as the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water , first slowly , then rapidly . i stood still ,my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers . suddenly i felt misty consciousness as of soothing forgotten --a thrill of returning thought and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me this passage from the stoyof my life is an wxample of which element of plotclimax action
Answers: 2
question
English, 22.06.2019 03:40
Read this paragraph from chapter 5 of the prince. there are, for example, the spartans and the romans. the spartans held athens and thebes, establishing there an oligarchy: nevertheless they lost them. the romans, in order to hold capua, carthage, and numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. they wished to hold greece as the spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. so to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. and he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. and whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the florentines. what idea is stressed in the passage? the desire for liberty the establishment of an oligarchy the dismantling of an acquired state the tendency toward rebellion
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
1.
In your opinion, why were people hesitant to accepted genocide as a punishable crime?
2...
Questions
question
Mathematics, 02.04.2021 03:00
question
Mathematics, 02.04.2021 03:00
question
Social Studies, 02.04.2021 03:00
Questions on the website: 13722363