B PRIMARY SOURCE Bartolomé de Las
Casas
Las Casas was an early Spanish
missionary who watched fellow
Spaniards unleash attack dogs on
Native Americans
Their other frightening weapon after
the horses: twenty hunting
greyhounds. They were unleashed and
fell on the Indians at the cry of
Tómalo! ["Get them!"). Within an hour
they had preyed on one hundred of
them. As the Indians were used to
going completely naked, it is easy to
imagine what the fierce greyhounds
did, urged to bite naked bodies and
skin much more delicate than that of
the wild boars they were used to
This tactic, begun here and invented by
the devil, spread throughout these
Indies and will end when there is no
more land nor people to subjugate and
destroy in this part of the world.
SECONDARY SOURCE
Suzan Shown Harjo
Harjo, a Native American, disputes the
benefits that resulted from Columbus's
voyages and the European colonization
of the Americas that followed.
Columbus Day, never on Native
America's list of favorite holidays,
became somewhat tolerable as its
significance diminished to little more
than a good shopping day. But this
next long year [1992] of Columbus
hoopla will be tough to take amid the
spending sprees and horn blowing to
tout a five-century feeding frenzy that
has left Native people and this red
quarter of Mother Earth in a state of
emergency. For Native people, this half
millennium of land grabs and one-cent
treaty sales has been no bargain.

In what ways do Source B and C agree about Columbus / and the Spaniards ?

what are local authorities doing to fix the problem

explanation:

explanation:

the answer is the huegonots.

well the fact it is basically a peninsula allowed trade to come from many places, thus allowing cultural diffusion to take place. india has seasonal monsoons that merchants travel back and forth from india using the monsoons wind patterns

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is