question archive Below is a discussion question Brower and Sanders (2014) write that observers of the post-World War I Middle East referred to the region as one of "states without nations, nations without states" (p
Below is a discussion question Brower and Sanders (2014) write that observers of the post-World War I Middle East referred to the region as one of "states without nations, nations without states" (p
Subject:HistoryPrice: Bought3
Below is a discussion question
Brower and Sanders (2014) write that observers of the post-World War I Middle East referred to the region as one of "states without nations, nations without states" (p. 353). Does this characterization still fit the region generally? If so, why? If not, why not?
Below is an answer to the above question need a relpy/response to the given answer below like agreeing or disagree so on. Needs to be only a small paragraph no double spacing or no APA format.
Yes, I believe it does. This region is consistently battling over borders and/or religions and/or ethnicities. Despite all of the help from other nations and the UN, these battles continue today.
