All court proceedings are closed to the public and all files pertaining to cases are confidential in

according to the denotation of “repeat,” history can’t repeat itself. (and if you want to get technical and into chaos theory, neither can anything else.) unlike lab-controlled experiments that can be exactly replicated (although not really), humans are life is always evolving and unpredictable and involves incalculable symbiotic relationships.

but, if we consider “repeat” as both a metaphor and in terms of its connotation, we can understand what people mean by “history repeats itself,” and it actually emerges as a useful conceptual tool. as mark twain put it, “history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

the vast, vast majority of people don’t in anyway think that history literally, exactly repeats itself. such would violate celebrated philosophies of free will. when people say that history repeats itself, they are generally thinking of broad patterns. another way to describe these patterns or relationships would be to describe them as cause and effect relationships. they are thinking about the existence of and continuation of

war,

poverty,

colonialism,

racism,

sexism,

classism, or

social movements, to list only a few of the repeated/unending phenomena of human history.a more specific example could be that every step forward in the long african-american civil rights movement has resulted in new forms of discrimination. lynching, disenfranchisement, and neo-enslavement (collectively called “jim crow”) replaced codified plantation and urban enslavement after the civil war and reconstruction era. today, the “new jim crow” (a system where by at least 1 out of every 3 black men are confined in the criminal justice system) replaced jim crow after the modern civil rights movement of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.

people remain “babies” on the evolutionary ladder – we are greedy, shortsighted, and quick to buy into fear of “the other.” spending time trying to argue that history doesn’t repeat is ultimately not very productive for historians, a debate primarily involving semantic differences.

furthermore, if nothing “repeated,” it would quickly become impossible to study anything. much of what we study is about relationships between times and places. on the other hand, if we “dig deep,” language repeats all the time per se. if we had to relearn language every day, we would never progress. by saying “history repeats,” we are recognizing the ways in which we are bound to this world and products of it. this is not to say that nothing ever improves or changes.

as historians, we can and should use the real meanings behind notions that history repeats to students enjoy and embrace the study of our world. indeed one of the many reasons i enjoy studying history, as i tell students in my “what is history? ” lecture, is that history is comforting and allows us to see the world as a more steady place. according to the news and joe public, crime, poverty, you name it, are worse now than it ever has been. if we look at historical evidence, we can find that such fears are unnecessary. likewise, every generation says the previous generation had it better or older adults long for the time when they were adolescents when the world was a better, safer place (i call this the myth of the utopia past).  

finally, although human events can never come close to any kind of true replication, history belongs to both the liberal arts and the sciences. that history is a liberal art needs no explanation. that history is also a science, however, is where i tend to meet objections.

scientists follow the scientific method. they follow a series of steps to ensure their work is the best it can be given current resources. don’t historians do this? historians come up with questions, look for evidence, analyze evidence, weave in secondary material, write and edit, edit some more, and then go through peer-reviewers both informally and formally. this is indeed the historian’s equivalent of the scientific method. historical narratives or theories about the past are no more or less theories or narratives as human evolution or the big bang, for example. all scholarship involves theory and explanation based on evidence.

likewise, for reasons i haven’t fully grasped or studied yet, science tends to have more credibility with the public. people tend to perceive history as always changing, unstable, and inherently biased by “crazy, liberal academics.” in reality, science changes just as much, is just as unstable, and has just as many biases. in other words, history and any of the specific branches of science are all social constructions- both the discipline themselves and scholarship produced. by promoting the study of the past as a science, perhaps historians would have more automatic credibility.

be sure to check out: the nature of history and the history of history, i am many things but a “history buff” is not one of them. – hidden power of words series, #14, and my other postings about history, too!

explanation:

i will need the answers to the problems. i took the test but cant remember the options. i would look up the questions that might .

for number 3, the answer is something about how they wanted to get sc to vote twords it, so they add the bill of rights or edited it.

for number 5, the answer is that it was even, they chose one side just as likely as they did the other.

the russian empire[a] was an empire that extended across eurasia and north america from 1721, following the end of the great northern war, until the republic was proclaimed by the provisional government that took power after the february revolution of 1917.[4]

the third largest empire in world history, at its greatest extent stretching over three continents, europe, asia, and north america, the russian empire was surpassed in size only by the british and mongol empires. the rise of the russian empire coincided with the decline of neighboring rival powers: the swedish empire, the polish–lithuanian commonwealth, persia and the ottoman empire. it played a major role in 1812–1814 in defeating napoleon's ambitions to control europe and expanded to the west and south.

the house of romanov ruled the russian empire from 1721 until 1762, and its matrilineal branch of patrilineal german descent the house of holstein-gottorp-romanov ruled from 1762. at the beginning of the 19th century, the russian empire extended from the arctic ocean in the north to the black sea in the south, from the baltic sea on the west to the pacific ocean, into alaska and northern california in america on the east.[5] with 125.6 million subjects registered by the 1897 census, it had the third-largest population in the world at the time, after qing china and india. like all empires, it featured great diversity in terms of economies, ethnicity, and religion. there were many dissident elements, who launched numerous rebellions and assassination attempts; they were closely watched by the secret police, with thousands exiled to siberia.

economically, the empire had a predominantly agricultural base, with low productivity on large estates worked by serfs (russian peasants) until they were freed in 1861. the economy slowly industrialized with the of foreign investments in railways and factories. the land was ruled by a nobility, the boyars, from the 10th through the 17th centuries, and subsequently by an emperor. tsar ivan iii (1462–1505) laid the groundwork for the empire that later emerged. he tripled the territory of his state, ended the dominance of the golden horde, renovated the moscow kremlin, and laid the foundations of the russian state. emperor peter the great (1682–1725) fought numerous wars and expanded an already huge empire into a major european power. he moved the capital from moscow to the new model city of st. petersburg, and led a cultural revolution that replaced some of the traditionalist and medieval social and political mores with a modern, scientific, europe-oriented, and rationalist system.

empress catherine the great (reigned 1762–1796) presided over a golden age; she expanded the state by conquest, colonization and diplomacy, continuing peter the great's policy of modernization along western european lines. emperor alexander ii (1855–1881) promoted numerous reforms, most dramatically the emancipation of all 23 million serfs in 1861. his policy in eastern europe involved protecting the orthodox christians under the rule of the ottoman empire. that connection by 1914 led to russia's entry into the first world war on the side of france, the united kingdom, and serbia, against the german, austrian, and ottoman empires.

the russian empire functioned as an absolute monarchy on principles of orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality until the revolution of 1905 and then became a de jure constitutional monarchy. the empire collapsed during the february revolution of 1917, largely as a result of massive failures in its participation in the first world war.