Similarities Between

The American Revolution produced an entirely new country. The French Revolution only added new things to the way Parliament could interact with the people.

both countries experienced rapid urbanization following industrialization

They both made a huge diffrence for many people.

Jinah succeed to made Pakistan.it was impossible to made Pakistan but he made Pakistan with his intelligence.British,Hindus and Muslims were against the Jinah.The difference between Jinnah and Gandhi was intelligence.Jinah was too much intelligent then Gandhi.

tHE DISTANCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND aUSTRALIA IS 455698KM

• They were leaders
• They had followers
• They sought to serve others
• They fasted and prayed
• They sought to bring peace through non-violent ways

One is in Canada and the other is in America

No. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is something that actually exists. There is no such thing as the Indian-Palestinian Conflict. Therefore, they cannot be the same thing.

Perhaps you mean the Indian-Pakistani Conflict, which is a real conflict, but a different one from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Both conflicts are similar in that there were two different groups of people were living in the same former colony that wanted to each form their own country and did so with varying degrees of success.

both of the settlements were populated by the english.

The Magna Carta differs from the Declaration of Independence in the way that it influenced the Declaration, and was written in a time many years before the Declaration came into play. They both declare that there will be now unlawful imprisionment or rights taken away from citizens, but the Magna Carta was more the law of the land and the Declaration of Independence is the protection of citizens freedom.

I know this is basic knowledge but here it goes :)

--- They both helped fight racism in a nonviolent way, by both protesting and helping others have the courage to 'fight' with out actually fighting.---

hope this helps!!

They both had a form of federal government, even though there was more "state power" in the Confederate States, as noted in the Confederate preamble.

The Confederate document was basically a copy of the US Constitution, except for some pointed changes: the term of the president was 6 years, bills in Congress were restricted from having non-germane amendments, and (pointedly) industry could not be supported by tariffs.

Taxation without representation, the Boston Massacre, the Stamp act and the Intolerable Acts.

A perfect competitive market and pure monopoly market both have to follow the "law of demand".

They aren't the same not one bit. IN the Holocaust millions (6 million to be percise) of innocent Jews were killed, along with gypsies, homosexuals, cripples, and mentally handicaps. The Civil was trying to liberate a certain people so they could eventually be treated as equal. Nothing in common.

* Subsidiary legislation can be passed very speedily as it does not have to undergo the various stages of procedure which has to be followed by Parliament or the State Legislative Assemblies. Similarly, if the need arise, subsidiary legislation can be just as speedily rescinded to meet the changing needs of society. * Parliament does not have sufficient time to deal with detailed rules necessary to implement to law. Subsidiary legislation fulfils this need. * Some matters require the special skills and knowledge of experts in that area. Parliament tself may not have sufficient experts for this purpose. Thus, subsidiary legislation fulfils this need as well. * The advantage of subsidiary legislation becomes apparent in the event of a sudden emergency caused by political, economic or natural calamites when quick measures are required to meet the contingency.

There aren't many similarities between the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War but what I can say is that they both started in a different country and that country asked for the United States help. The United States plays a huge part in both wars. See in the Vietnam War the United States gets involved because our president didn't want Communism to spread across the world which would soon also end up in the United States. In the Persian Gulf War Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi and Kuwait called for help and the Unites States stepped in to help Kuwait drive out Iraqi from their country.

The things that are similar is that Louis XIV and XIV both mean the 14TH

The two political ideologies used in the Cold War were democracy and communism. The United States was a democratic country while the Soviet Union was communist dictatorship. We elected our leaders while they had no choice of who was in charge.

In Australia and Athens you have to be a citizen over 18 to vote.

They also both had a structured Government where there is a political assembly, law makers, the people who put the laws into practice and the people who asses the laws. All of these groups (law makers etc.) are one of the greatest ideas and biggest influences to today's modern democracy.

Another great similarity is that any one can express their opinion in a political assembly/meeting.

In Australia and Athens you have to be over 18 to join politics.

One of the main differences between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods was in the main methods people used to acquire food. In the Palaeolithic, anatomically modern humans and their ancestors were mainly nomadic hunter gatherers. By the Neolithic people had developed farming, allowing them to live in settlements such as villages and towns. Diet also changed as a result of people eating more cereals and other farmed crops.

Compared to the Neolithic, the Palaeolithic people had a far less complex technology. They used basic stone, bone and antler tools and developments such as art and other forms of "higher culture" only occur in the later stages of the Palaeolithic. Neolithic people mastered the use of many more types of raw material, notably clays to make pottery and the beginnings of metalworking. Exchange and trade networks were also comparatively more developed.

The relationship was very poor for the most part. The Europeans came with a superior attitude that they could take the land they found. They never considered that the trees they chopped down, the fences they built, and crops they planted changed the landscape and the lives of the Native Americans living there. They simply didn't care and wanted to turn the colonies they founded into replicas of England. As a consequence of all of this the relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans was not good. Two different philosophies about life were at work.

The Industrial Revolution involved economic and industrial concepts.

The French Revolution was based on political and social constructs like the Rights of Man and the Citizen and Enlightenment Philosophy.

Both had a major impact on how men would live their lives in the future and both had great and grave social impact on future generations.