“The classic narrative [of the Columbian encounter] can be summarized as follows: At the end of the fifteenth century Christopher Columbus discovered America, adding to the world two continents populated sparsely with ‘savages.’. . . . Then the conquistadores, few in number but courageous, conquered the Amerindian civilizations, which, for all their temples and gold, were evidently no more than paper tigers. . . . British, French, Dutch, and other European soldiers, merchants, and settlers did much the same thing in those parts of the New World not yet claimed by the Iberians. The history of the New World subsequently became the struggle of European imperialist powers for domination, and Amerindians ceased to be important. . . . [A new generation of historians, however, took] a fresh look at the origins of European imperialism, [examining] perhaps elements less dramatic than gold and God and heroes. . . . [According to these historians], in 1492 two systems, one of the Old World and the other of the New World, collided. The Old World peoples had some distinct advantages in the biological competition that followed. . . . The decisive advantage of the [European] invaders of America was not their plants or animals—and certainly not their muskets and rifles, which Amerindians eventually obtained in quantity—but their diseases. . . . These were the most lethal of the invaders of the New World in the sixteenth centur

Based on the first paragraph, identify ONE argument made in the “classic narrative” of the Columbian encounter.
b) Explain ONE development in the sixteenth century that would support the arguments of the “new generation of historians” in the second paragraph.

c) Describe ONE way in which the “biological competition” referred to in the second paragraph contributed to European imperialism in the Americas.

frederick the great and the war of austrian succession. frederick william of brandenburg-prussia trained his son, frederick, to be a hardy soldier. he also declared himself king of bohemia, and maria theresa sent troops to retake bohemia. in august he led 80,000 of these men across the frontier into bohemia, his

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:

every of the four river valley civilizations, religion played an enormous role in shaping and cultivating each civilization. this essay will briefly discuss how religion formed the river valley people’s government and view on geography. religion dictated how the peoples of the river valley civilizations managed government and geography.

            religious leaders played prominent roles in every river valley civilizations form of government. from ancient egypt and mesopotamia to china’s historic empire and the indus river valley, all the river valley civilizations had significant religious figures. in ancient egypt, the pharaoh was revered as a god and therefore was given his right as supreme governing authority in the eyes of the people. the elusive emperors of china gained there governing rights by a mandate of heaven creating long lines of dynasties until the common people of china felt the dynasty had lost the favor of the gods. chinese emperors were not only governing leaders but also the spiritual leaders of ancient china. mesopotamian and indus river valley priests were referred as has head officials who had vast amounts of authority in these two civilizations primitive forms of democracy. religion shaped the structure and social caste of the four river valley civilizations.

hope that

we need to see the passage before we can do anything further.   give me brainliest