Question: After the Union of Horodo the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared slektaa direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, slekta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text slekta) complicates all naming.
Try to answer this question if possible: Who forbid the use of the word slekta?
Answer: Lithuanian linguists
Question: The rulers of the expansionist Qin dynasty, based in present-day Gansu and Shaanxi, were only the first strategists to realize that the area's military importance matched its commercial and agricultural significance. The Sichuan basin is surrounded by the Himalayas to the west, the Qin Mountains to the north, and mountainous areas of Yunnan to the south. Since the Yangtze flows through the basin and then through the perilous Yangzi Gorges to eastern and southern China, Sichuan was a staging area for amphibious military forces and a refuge for political refugees.[citation needed]
Try to answer this question if possible: What surrounds the Sichuan basin to the east?
Answer: unanswerable
Question: The book was never published. Instead the Normans whirled off to New York. Norman published the gist of his planned travel book curiously mixed with vituperation against the Ottoman Empire in an article in June, 1896, in Scribner's Magazine. The empire had descended from an enlightened civilization ruling over barbarians for their own good to something considerably less. The difference was the Hamidian Massacres, which were being conducted even as the couple traveled the Balkans. According to Norman now, the empire had been established by "the Moslem horde" from Asia, which was stopped by "intrepid Hungary." Furthermore, "Greece shook off the turbaned destroyer of her people" and so on. The Russians were suddenly liberators of oppressed Balkan states. Having portrayed the Armenians as revolutionaries in the name of freedom with the expectation of being rescued by the intervention of Christian Europe, he states "but her hope was vain." England had "turned her back." Norman concluded his exhortation with "In the Balkans one learns to hate the Turk." Norman made sure that Gladstone read the article. Prince Nicolas of Montenegro wrote a letter thanking him for his article.
Try to answer this question if possible: Who were liberators of oppressed Balkan states?
Answer: The Russians
Question: Anthropologists such as C. Loring Brace, the philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther, and the geneticist Joseph Graves,[page needed] have argued that while there it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as "continental races", this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is therefore dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clustering would be different. Weiss and Fullerton have noted that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form and all other populations could be described as being clinally composed of admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan genetic materials. Kaplan and Winther therefore argue that, seen in this way, both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments. They conclude that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. Moreover, the genomic data underdetermines whether one wishes to see subdivisions (i.e., splitters) or a continuum (i.e., lumpers). Under Kaplan and Winther's view, racial groupings are objective social constructions (see Mills 1998 ) that have conventional biological reality only insofar as the categories are chosen and constructed for pragmatic scientific reasons. In earlier work, Winther had identified "diversity partitioning" and "clustering analysis" as two separate methodologies, with distinct questions, assumptions, and protocols. Each is also associated with opposing ontological consequences vis-a-vis the metaphysics of race.
Try to answer this question if possible: What are objective social constructions?
Answer:
racial groupings